Good evening and welcome to the May 28th Planning Commission meeting.

Will the Secretary please call the roll?

Yes.

Commissioner Moran?

Here.

Commissioner Count?

Here.

Commissioner Kwok.

Here.

And Chair Needing?

Here.

And for the record, Vice Chair Klopp and Commissioner Strongman and Commissioner Anderson are absent tonight, and they did notify staff in advance.

So we have four and we do have a quorum.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't see anything, but just to confirm, is there anything on the consent calendar?

Nothing on the consent calendar.

Perfect.

So there are two opportunities for the public to provide comment.

The first one is during the agenda item as it pertains to the agenda item.

The second opportunity is when it is not on the agenda item, but it falls within the purview of the planning commission.

So I did want to ask, since I see some folks in the room, are there any public comments that are not on the agenda?

Seeing none.

I want to ask the uh my fellow commissioners if there's been any ex parte communication.

Seeing a lot of shaking heads.

Okay, then let's move on to item number four A, which I believe it has been postponed.

Oh, go ahead.

That is correct.

So we are pulling the cash in short-term rental Y25-105 project off the agenda, and it will be scheduled to a date uncertain, so it's continued tonight.

Thank you.

Perfect, thank you.

So now moving on to item 4B, application Y 2506, the Crow Short Term Rental.

The staff have a presentation.

And before we begin, I wanted to introduce.

She is the city's new assistant director, and uh we are very thrilled to have her uh to be a part of our team and also to lead our team.

So please welcome Malee.

Welcome to you all.

Um, press, nope.

Still learning the buttons.

Anyways, thank you all so much for welcoming me.

I really look forward to getting to know all of you more and serving this wonderful community.

Well, we're glad to have you here.

Thank you so much.

Okay, uh, good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the planning commission.

My name is Stephen Cook, assistant planner with the city's community development department.

Uh before you this evening is a request for a conditional use permit to establish a short-term rental within an existing single family home located at 635 Mandarin Lane.

The associated planning application number is Y25-086.

The project site is located in the northern portion of the city within the Woodlands neighborhood.

The property is a 12,000 square foot reverse corner lot with frontages along both Mandarin Lane and Sugarberry Court.

The site is developed with a single story, approximately 2100 square foot residence and an attached 539 square foot two-car garage.

The main entrance to the home is oriented toward and accessed from Mandarin Lane, while the garage and driveway access are provided from Sugarberry Court.

Surrounding land uses include similar single-family residences, Belly Verde Elementary School, and nearby commercial and community serving uses.

Following the application submittal, additional reports were received by both planning and code enforcement staff indicating that the property may have continued operating as a short-term rental.

As a result, on March 23rd of 2026 of this year, planning staff issued a letter to the property owner advising that the online advertisements be removed and noting that the operation without the appropriate permit constitutes a violation of the city's municipal code.

Additionally, on April 14th of 2026, code enforcement staff issued a separate letter directing the property owner to remove all online advertisements and future bookings by April 24th, 2026.

On April 21st of 2026, the applicant confirmed receipt of this information.

And as part of staff's due diligence leading up to tonight's planning commission meeting, site visits were conducted on May 1st and May 18th of this year, and during both site visits, staff observed no active on-site activity during daytime hours.

Transitioning to the project details, the applicant submitted a business operating plan, which is included as attachment 4 to the agenda report.

This slide summarizes the proposed operational characteristics of the short-term rental.

The property owner, excuse me, the property would operate as an unhosted accommodation and would be managed by a designated host rather than the property owner.

The host has been authorized by the property owner to apply for and manage the permit.

The home would be advertised on short-term rental platforms such as Airbnb and Verbo.

Guests would be required to book a minimum stay of three days with stays permitted for up to 30 days.

In addition, guests must be at least 21 years' age at the time of booking, and to promote neighborhood compatibility and security.

The applicant is proposing security cameras at the front door, the garage, the backyard areas to monitor for unpermitted guests.

The host would also be available at all times to respond to urgent concerns, including in-person visits and response if necessary.

Other relevant details are included in the slide below.

The slide includes the property's existing floor plan.

Labeled in yellow is the four bedrooms within the residence.

There's also two bathrooms, a family room, a living room, and a kitchen area, as well as an attached two-car garage.

The blue labeled areas indicate the exit and entry exit and entry points for the home, including the front yard, excuse me, excuse including the front entry door, the rear sliding door, and also the garage entry door.

The project is required to meet the standard conditional use permit findings as indicated on the slide.

Staff has included a response to each finding contained in the draft resolution.

The project has demonstrated compliance with the city's general plan, zoning ordinance, and public health and safety requirements.

The project is also required to satisfy the findings contained within the bed and breakfast in ordinance.

This slide outlines each of the required findings, and based on staff's review, the proposed short-term rental has demonstrated compliance with all required findings, with the exception of finding C as highlighted.

Finding C requires that the length of stay is no longer than one week.

However, the ordinance contains a provision in finding J, again as highlighted, that the planning commission can make an exception to grant a longer length of stay.

Staff believes that extending extending the approval up to the requested 30 days would not impact the residential character of the neighborhood and may potentially reduce the number of guest turnover.

It should be further noted if the property was rented for a period of 31 days or greater, then it would be permitted by right.

The project is categorically exempt for section 15301, class one existing facilities, since the project will incur within an existing home and is not proposing any modifications to the structure or the site.

Staff would also like to note that several public comments have been received, and those comments are included as attachment six of the agenda report.

Comments generally note opposition to the project and express concerns regarding neighborhood compatibility and overall safety.

Staff recommends the planning commission move to determine the project exempt from CEQA, adopt the draft resolution approving the conditional use permit for the short-term rental at 635 Mandarin Lane, subject to the conditions contained therein.

Okay, that concludes staff's presentation for tonight.

Staff is available to answer any of the questions the commission may have.

Furthermore, the applicant, Mr.

Krauss has prepared a presentation and could provide additional details in regards to the business operation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Does anyone have any questions for staff?

Yes.

Alright.

Hi, Steven.

Thank you for the presentation.

It was very informative and it answered a lot of questions that I had coming into this meeting.

I did want to clarify for it sounds like the code enforcement was called out to the site to look at the complaints from the um people that filed complaints.

And so in addition to observing that there was unpermitted activity at 635 Mandarin, were there any other sorts of observations that the code enforcement made?

The let me take it.

So yes, I did check with the code enforcement officers and looked at the code case that was open for this project.

Um the most of the concerns raised or neighbors just wanted the city to be notified that there are unpermitted operations on site.

Um that was the primary primary comments that were received.

Okay.

But they're still operating without any permits in place.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I do have a question.

Um the bed, the I you know what?

Why don't we just we can allow the applicant and then I'll have questions after that?

Is that okay?

So we're gonna open up the public hearing item now, and the applicant, which you just told me is here.

I believe we have 10 minutes.

It's 15 now.

My apologies.

You have 15 minutes.

Yes.

Okay, I don't know exactly your title, so say you staff.

Thank you for having me.

Give me the opportunity.

Uh, please thank you for being here.

Uh so on the next 15 minutes or I would like to explain to you how I manage this property and why it should be approved.

Uh so my objective for tonight.

Oh, sorry.

Uh, okay.

So my objectives.

My objective for tonight would be what it's like all kind of like old code instead of the check mark.

Okay, so uh understand the current uh short-term rental market in Days Bay and Walnut Creek, debunk misconceptions about short-term rentals operations.

Understand how technology and experience eliminates or dramatically reduce any risk, why uh six thirty five money lane should be granted uh CUP.

I will address any neighbors's concern and then QA.

If required, uh the end of the presentation is the business plan and list of all the requirements that I was asked to to meet uh for these things that I met.

So I would like to give an overview of short-term rental in Walnut Creek.

Like any guesses how many short-term rentals operate in Walnut Creek today?

Any guess?

Throw me a number.

Anybody?

30.

Anybody else?

173.

Not 700 or 700 173 operate in Walnut Creek today.

So 173 short-term rentals.

There are seven on Albond Avenue.

So this is very important for the city for the city because this brings close to 800 guests a month to the city.

Guests that go to Robert Plaza, have been a downtown, rent cars, they provide 7.3 million of revenue to the city of Walnut Creek on a yearly basis.

If short-term rentals will be an issue, and there's 170 in Warner Creek, we would hear about it, right?

You guys would be flooded with phone calls, but you don't because it's a pretty safe operation.

Who remembers when Airbnb and Uber just started?

Everybody said, Oh my god, who's gonna get strangers in their cars?

Who's gonna drive strangers?

So we're gonna buy strangers to stay in the house.

Yet today, the multi million public company traded with 9 million active short-term rentals worldwide and 10 million Uber drivers.

Okay, why Walnut Creek, right?

When I was doing my research about where would be more sense to open a short-term rental, my son was making fun of me.

Like, Dad, who the hell is gonna stay at the short-term rental in Warner Creek?

I did my research.

So short-term rentals don't host a typical tourist, right?

Walnut Creek has your mirror and has Kaiser.

Guess I'll stay at my house because family relatives are having major surgeries.

Hotels cannot accommodate that scenario.

My very very first guest, actually, family grew up in Walnut Creek.

Mom was in hospice in Walnut Creek.

Kids live in Sacramento, Chicago, New York.

Mom was gonna die sometime in the next two weeks.

The three siblings and a couple of cousins wanted to have a place to mourn, share pictures, talk, share memories.

Do we expect them to do that at the lobby bar of the Marriott?

No.

There's a need for situations like this, right?

Uh all the common guests are people that come for weddings.

There's a lot of weddings venue nearby, right?

Bancroft gardens, Heather Farms, the Hacienda in Moraga.

Families come also to stay when there's big games, you know, St.

Mary's versus Stanford St.

Mary's Loyola's very clever stand for etc.

Right.

Um a short-term rental provides a family environment, provides the feel of being a home yet not at home.

It's something that a hotel cannot provide, right?

And also people like to stay here, go to San Francisco as a tourist, but don't stay in San Francisco because homeless and potential crime issues.

Hotels are also super expensive there, and people also stay here and go to NUPAP.

Okay.

All the cities nearby.

Alamo's a little cocoon, right?

It's like tiny tiny, has like two off-ramp on the freeway.

Have nine short-term rentals.

Pleasant Hill has 82.

Orinda has 19.

So, I said how many are in Warner Creek?

How many of you guys think are in the East Bay?

Any guesses now?

There are 5200 short term mental operating on this bay, which provide 15 million dollars on a monthly revenue for the East Bay.

These are talking about examples of what short-term rental service accommodates.

As I said, the family gathering of a grandma hospice, I gave you that example.

I had a family whose wife had major surgery at John Mirror.

They arrived three days before the surgery.

What do they stay during surgery?

And then they stay like a couple of weeks or post-op because you need to go back to your mirror for post-opters, right?

They rented a hospital bed, they rented a big recliner.

No hotel is gonna be able to do that, right?

It provides it provides an environment that helps things, right?

Another real uh guest of mine was a widow mom and his teenage son, which was terminally ill, and they were trying a new revolutionary way to cure whatever the kid had at Altaids.

They wanted to have a home, not a hotel.

They want to have peace, they want a quiet place to stay, a place where the mom could cook for the son.

Those are an actual guest, right?

Host of some weddings, not the wedding per se, but you know, the price mason, the bride, and that kind of thing.

That's what I said for the meditation uh regarding sports related for local local teams.

So regarding misconceptions about uh short-term rentals, parties, they're not allowed.

I mean, to be in the short-term rental platforms, Airbnb, B WhatsApp, you go through a background check, so the identity, who you are, and a background check is conducted for starters, right?

Then the platforms don't allow parties.

Um parking.

Most people that stay at short-term rentals either Uber or rent minimums or SUVs.

I don't think I've never ever had more than three cars parked at the house.

Noise.

Um, I have a French device called Minute that monitors levels of noise to a certain level of decibels.

If the noise passes that level of decibels, the device speaks, saying you're being too loud, lower the volume and I identification on my phone.

I also have Stephen says I have cameras on the entry, garage and back here.

So noise is very under control.

Who are the guests?

Are they dangerous?

Suspicious, do we want them running through the neighborhood?

I don't accept any guest that doesn't have a minimum of three reviews with five stars.

Since guests are reviewed, and the reviews are public on the platforms, guests have very embedded interest in behaving because a potential uh in the future, a short term mental host, is not going to allow a guest who has bad reviews, right?

So, you cannot read this, but it's the small phone, but those are reviews of three guests that have stayed with me.

One of them cannot refer here, one of them has 85 five-star reviews.

Another one has like 30 something and has been on the platform for 11 years.

Will you have any concern as people centered house?

If 85 people before that have given five-star reviews and have written comments, let the house in immaculate in immaculate shape.

I will welcome back anytime.

Treat the house like their own.

I won't have any concern.

I don't have any concern if those criteria are met.

So talking about nice, nice noise crowd environmental factors.

So I explain a little bit about the minor device.

It controls, well, detects noise levels, crowd sizes.

Actually, it tells me how many people are on the house.

It tells me if they're pets.

It tells me people are smoking, but small detectors don't detect smoking.

They detect fire.

Right?

So it's not telling me if somebody's smoking.

If there's a fire, actually, connects to 911.

Um controls.

So anyway.

Oh shit, I don't have four minutes.

Okay, so um, as we still only have three cameras, and I want to address with all respect the neighbor's concern.

Um, public information, so I have the actual complaints.

Um, need you to make sure to address us.

Oh, sorry.

Okay, thank you.

Like looking at you like this.

Us, just not anybody in the audience.

Oh, okay, okay.

Beautiful.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you for letting me know.

Okay.

Yeah, I don't know who's who.

Yeah, you know.

Perfect.

Yeah, um, so uh Jim McCamish uh was concerned concerned about closeness to school to a school.

When guests book the house, they don't have the address.

They don't know there's a school nearby, and I don't see how this is relevant.

Unknown visitors.

I explained that yeah, there's people that may be unknown, but there are people that have reviews of state, dozens of other people's short-term rentals, there hasn't been any concern, but I would not take them, right?

The mentioned dangerous conditions, I don't know what would be a dangerous condition, noise disturbance.

I already talked about how it's controlled, right?

There are concern about zoning violations, the zoning of the house of the neighborhood is not changing, parking issues.

Talk about it.

Uh is a residential area, will continue being a residential area.

There's not gonna be hot.

This is not gonna open the door for hotels and hotels to get them up to sugarberry.

Uh there's no perceived upside for the community.

There's absolutely an upside for the community.

I gave you close to 50 signatures of people that own businesses or work at businesses on four plazas there within half a mile of the house.

And they are in full support of getting approval because they know that people that are short-term rentals eat out more often.

They buy whole foods, they buy a trade AJOs, they go to have their nails done, they ship stuff at UPS.

So there is an upside for the community.

The concern that Dana Birch had, transient people.

Yeah, but they're screen people.

They had a background check, they have good reviews.

Is that an area for tourists?

Yeah, the woodlands maybe not an area for tourists, and most people that come are not tourists, as I explain.

Not hotels in the area, well, there's no hotels there, but then there's a bunch of hotels in Walnut Creek.

There's a demand for that.

I mean, the Hilton Garden was just built recently, right?

Uh no new no neighborhoods into hotel areas.

Again, there's two different zonings.

There's not gonna be hotels at the woodlands or nearby just because this is approved.

Uh Wendy all will have concerns about rezoning.

Again, zoning will not change.

The people will be there for the weekends.

Well, no, they're also on weekdays.

Um stay uh is three days.

Party house, again, the platforms don't approve parties.

Uh, my minimum stay is three days.

So if somebody were trying to throw a party, that would be pretty expensive to throw a party, and I explain how noise levels are controlled.

Uh Elaine Coin said, Do you remember the people have forgotten about happened in Orinda?

What happened in Orinda?

About four or five years ago, uh short-term Antony Rinda had a huge party.

There's like 25 people or something like that.

There's a bunch of cars and music and whatever.

Why do we all know about the Rinda?

Why do we remember the incidents that are in there?

Because it's the only one.

If there will be instances, negative things happening at Airbnbs with parties all the time.

We wouldn't remember Arinda.

Right?

If colon bind would have been the only mass shooting, we all remember it.

There's one every three days.

So we don't even, it's even hard to remember which over there.

So we all remember Rinda because he was a complete outlier.

Well, Chick-fil-A.

That was 15.

That was 15.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

The okay.

The only code enforcement I received was that somebody complained that people knock at the door of some neighborhouse at night to ask for the address.

The house is clearly firm mark with light numbers.

And I tried Apple, Google ways and the right my Tesla and it puts you at the door.

Okay.

So I went to slow.

Thank you.

Does anyone have questions for the applicant?

Yes.

Thank you.

How many times would you say that the city has asked uh for the listing to be taken down while you were applying for the CUP?

Twice, I believe.

And one thing that I explained to Wade, I don't remember his name, sorry, the last name.

Uh call enforcement Wade.

Um he sent me screenshots of bookings.

I send him a screenshot of the platforms showing that I have modified it to minimum of 31 days and explained to people book months ahead, especially weddings, like right now, bookings for October 27.

So what I clarified to him and he got it, is that yes, there were bookings for less than 30 days, but were done a while ago.

And I see the screenshots of the bookings modified to 31 days.

Uh and is it listed currently?

As 31 days.

It just 31 days?

Uh-huh.

Are you sure?

Well, yeah, virtual, yeah.

If I were to show you on my laptop that I could book it right now for a couple days, would you believe me?

I wouldn't it would be an error at the platform because you shouldn't.

Okay.

Because that's what I found.

The platform make errors, like actually they took 2400 of our account without a reason, but if you I will call them, because it shouldn't be.

I modified.

So right, so you're you're saying right now that you when the staff asked you to take it down, you made it just 30 days and more.

If you go to Virgo, you should not be able to book for less than 31 days.

What about Airbnb?

It should not either.

But if you do, I mean I believe you, you can, I will call them as well as late because that's up one in their system.

Okay.

Have you had anybody booking just between the last couple days?

For our October.

Okay.

That's all I have.

Are there any?

Oh, go ahead.

All right, thank you for the presentation.

It was um very informative.

I did want to understand.

So the number 173 short-term rentals, uh, where did that number come from?

I wanted to kind of understand that data point and see how so there's a website called RDNA that groups gathers all the data from Virgo, Airbnb, Booking.com, all the different platforms.

Aggregates all that data, and you subscribe to it because you use it for market research.

So the data is accurate till today.

It actually is monitored every single day.

Like for example, no use my presentation, like Walnut Creek actually has 5% less short-term rentals than last year.

But um that data comes from uh all the different platforms that aggregate the data, that analyze the financials, the logistics, logistics and all that.

So it's actual current data.

Okay, so to clarify the the time frame would be for one year, 12 months, one hundred and seventy-three listings or one hundred and seventy.

Oh, today.

Today.

Well, like you know, three days ago when I would want to put a presentation.

Okay, okay.

So it's operating currently.

Okay.

And because it's an aggregate, that could mean that um they could be double counting.

So no, it's not.

No, no, no.

If it's on several platforms, no, it counts as one.

Because they they go by address.

Okay.

Alright.

Thank you.

Sure.

Um, is the property owner here?

No.

Uh, but there's a letter that Steven has saying that he is okay with he doesn't have anything to do with the business.

The letter.

Does the property owner that's okay with me to be far away or was unable to attend for some reason?

I was told that he didn't need it to be here.

And he doesn't have anything to do with the operation.

It's just a landlord.

Okay, thank you.

And then my other question is, um, what date did you first post this online for as a short term rental?

February of twenty three.

And when I I called City of Walnut Creek to ask if there were any regulations for short-term rentals in Walnut Creek, and sorry, I don't know who the name was, but uh a woman that talked said was that known.

There were no regulations.

And actually there's an interview with Chip Griffin, which you know, had a planning from uh interview in 2024, where he says that there was no regulations and Walnut Creek needs to get on going with the trends kind of thing, and there should be regulations.

Um I wanted to ask, it looks like you've done a lot of research in your presentation.

Did you know about the bed and breakfast ordinance and that I'm trying to figure out because you did a lot of research, but you didn't know about the ordinance and that you needed a C U P.

When I began, again I was told that there was there was no regulation.

Okay.

And I was not surprised because there's cities that there's no regulation, they don't care, just do it, right?

And there's some different levels of like logistics to do it, right?

Yeah.

The only letter that I received the uh the only complaint that I received or was metaware personally was the one about people knocking at neighbor's doors at night.

I never received any other complaint or notification, anything.

When I began this process working with Steven, then he told me about the bed and breakfast uh ordinance regulations.

Uh he gave me a list of the things that need to be met to be approved, and uh all of them were met at the bottom of the bottom presentation.

So all of all that was required by the city to be met, it's met.

Are there any further questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm so sorry.

Okay, you're good.

So um, I I might have missed this.

Um when have you discussed the um the operations with the neighbors and no or what has their response been?

So I discussed it with a neighbor that lives on the court because he has a short-term rental in Sacramento.

Um I was unpleasantly surprised when I was told that there were six people, six neighbors complaining.

That none of them address it with me personally, like several of them have my business cards.

Uh I talked to a few of them, you know, in in and out, driving, doing something in the front yard or whatever.

Um I was planning about thinking about talking to them, like you know, in the last week or whatever.

But honestly, I was kinda intimidated.

Because I mean, somebody sent seven emails to Stephen, right?

So I didn't think that talking to them in person would have been a good outcome.

So that's what I chose to get their concerns on and uh address each one of them on a slide saying, Hey, let me talk about these misconceptions, right?

There's no rezonating.

There's ways to controlled noise.

People get scream.

People get background check, that kind of thing.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

You can sit down.

Thank you so much.

Okay.

Now I would like to open up for public comment.

If there is any.

Are there any?

We do.

How many?

I have three speaker cards.

Anybody else wishes to speak?

Please fill out a speaker card.

And how many minutes?

Before I get over two minutes.

Okay, I did get that right.

Two minutes.

Should I please?

Yes, please.

Okay, Jan Warren.

Jan Warren, please come up.

They turned it in first.

Jan Warren, I live in the woodlands past 40 years.

My neighbor who was uh, you know, door knocked at 3 a.m., her husband's been in and out of the house hospital four times the past month, and uh they have a dot, she has a daughter-in-law going back to Spain tomorrow and doesn't get to see her very often, so she declined to come tonight.

But she was the initial mover and shaker here because she sees everything going on.

Uh my driveway is across the lawn of the 635.

So um, my initial um concern was that the city was not getting revenue from this uh property, and it's still a concern uh now now that I know how many others there are uh and it was very frustrating to deal with the city.

You go to the website, you look up a name, you talk to them, and then you don't know who's in charge of what, and then you don't hear back, and then you get you know sent to somebody else.

Um and a lot of this, of course, we didn't know.

I didn't I mean I went to the city council in August, and then I later sent emails to the city, and then I followed up this spring.

I don't know why the long delay between the application and May.

Um I will say that I'll probably run out of time.

Um last weekend we had people who were visiting uh or renting, and I went to put my garbage can out and there was the the car.

Now there's a long street, they could have parked it on their side.

It's a public street, but it'd be nice to be thoughtful.

Allow me my place, allow Lisa who lives on the corner and can only park between her her driveway and mine a place to park.

Uh a primary question I have uh is the um garage that is labeled as two cars.

I've never seen anyone in there.

We've heard that that's storage or something, people can't really drive in there and park.

I just want everything, you know.

If you got a construction vehicle, put it in there that that that can't be there because it was.

Thank you.

McCamish.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jimmy Camish.

Oh.

My name is Jim McCamish.

My wife Jane and I live at 714 Mandarin Lane in the neighborhood, along with our neighbors.

I have submitted comments to the planning commission on this application, and I appreciate the commission is taking these comments into into consideration.

And I would like to I would like to have more time, but I would like to comment very briefly on section 3A of the draft resolution considering the CUP permit finding requirements.

And as you know, the code is clear, very clear that no conditional youth permit may be granted unless the required findings are made.

And this includes a finding that the youth is consist consistent with the general plan.

The draft resolution has concluded that the short-term round satisfies all of the findings required by the code, but I would disagree with respect to item one at section uh 3A.

The reason given to support a finding that the short term rental use is consistent with the general plan is general plan policy 2.1 to promote Warner Creek as a regional destination, and policy 1.1 to protect it and enhance the distinctive characteristics of each neighborhood.

And this policy is apparently satisfied because there will not be a sign posted at the residence.

In my view, these reasons are sufficient in a couple ways.

First, there is no mention of how the short-term rental use will actually protect, maintain, or enhance the quality of life in the neighborhood, consistent with the vision and the principles and the goals of the general plan.

And other than not having a sign, there is really no meaningful explanation of how the short-term rental use will protect the safety, privacy, and character of our neighborhood consistent with the general plan.

In fact, there really isn't any mention of our neighborhood in this uh in section three A at all that I can see.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

So sorry, uh Jane McCamish.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jane McCamish, Jim's wife.

Uh live at 714 Mandarin Lane, a few doors down from 635.

And I just want to comment on what I've observed over the past year.

I've been woken up about uh three or four times at one or two o'clock in the morning to loud talking coming from that house.

Uh this house, it's a four-bedroom house, approximately twenty one hundred square feet, and it's advertised on VRBO and Airbnb that it can sleep fourteen people.

It's an awful lot of people.

The number of cars and the transient people in our neighborhood, the safety issue for the neighbors.

And that's along with the uh concern that this is going to be a party house.

So please for our public safety safety, don't approve this conditional use permit.

Thank you.

Oh, that's it.

Okay.

Sorry, thank you.

Um, are there any questions for any of the public speakers?

No.

Okay, now the applicant, you have five minutes to come back up here if you wish to be able to.

Okay.

At the end of what I was saying, we should run out of time, is that five, right?

Yeah, we're we're getting it.

Sorry.

Ah, ten.

No.

Uh so there's three.

That house will be in a rental house of fourteen years, right?

And there's three people, three types of people could be there, right?

The typical one-year lease tenant, right?

The only criteria that the landlord cares about renting a house to somebody on a one-year lease is the credit score and being employed, right?

Those people could be there for a year, or even after that, we have dogs that are parked 24 hours a day.

They can throw parties every single weekend.

They can change the oil of the cars and on the street, right?

There's no filtering, there's no background, there's no criteria.

The landlord cares for credit score and income.

That's it.

There's no concern about the neighborhood.

I do have the houses are one-year rental.

Hey, they're gonna have reach three feet tall, right?

No renters don't really keep the houses pretty.

If you see the house that I manage, it looks like all the houses in the neighborhood.

Free lawn, flowers, drops, trees, clean, well maintained.

So, the traditional route to one-year tenant, I think could be a lot worse.

Um, if somebody that came to my house and knocked at three in the dollars, uh three in the morning in somebody's door, deeply apologize for that.

But as I said, I drove four GPSs, and they drop your right at the house.

And the house has two numbers.

So that's benefiting the neighborhood.

I think it's actually safer, quieter potentially, than have somebody with good credit, and God knows what else that timely other person would do, right?

Um it clearly benefits the local community, and I have like close to 50 signatures of people that are own businesses or work at Siena Grande, Citrus Marketplace, the Trade Joe's Plaza.

I don't remember the four plazas, right?

Um I I pay people to clean the house to maintain the yard, that's a handyman.

So if this would not be approved, well, the wallets or several people would hurt.

Mine, I would lose about 50% of my family's income.

I I don't know how well I would get that income back.

I mean, I would lose my house basically, probably probably, you know, where we live.

I mean, it's it's a significant money generating for me subst maintaining my family.

So I think, and as I said, there's many misconceptions about short-term rentals, right?

Again, why we all remember Adorinda?

Because it was one event in many years.

I mean, there's 10 million Airbnbs in the world.

We don't hear about problems about that.

And I have devices for noise control, devices for crowd control.

I live very close.

Uh house is very well maintained.

Everybody that goes to house is very well screened and reviewed.

Actually, I consider it a very safe and well kept operation, that does benefit from neighborhood to the community nearby, the people that work there, own businesses there.

So as I said, 7 million 7 million dollars in uh revenue water creek, 770 people benefiting well no crease community financials.

So I think that's a still lot of misconceptions that are not really, I don't know, I was like well informed.

I think that you know those are like I don't know, not valid, about the correct way to the appropriate way to say it.

So, anyways, thank you so much.

Um are there any comments for the applicant or questions?

Yes, thanks, I think.

I have a quick question.

It's about the reviews.

So if somebody stays at your place or or any place in Airbnb, the they probably get prompted to write a review, what'd you think, and all that?

How's the timing like that work out?

They have two ways to do it.

Okay.

So it's fair to say that if if I were to stay in Airbnb, and I the review came online two weeks later, it would stand a reason that I was recently at the Airbnb.

Okay, yeah, thanks.

Sure.

Okay, um, I wanted to understand a little bit more, so you've gone into quite a bit of detail about the um noise monitoring systems and and uh other cameras, and so have those been there from when this house started being.

The camera the cameras, yeah.

The minute device just for about a year.

Okay.

So then the noise monitors are much more recent than the cameras, yeah.

Okay, I mean with the cameras, you can see how many people are there, but the actual device that sends a signal to my phone and says, hey, you're being too loud based on uh decibel numbers that I set on the device on the website device.

Uh yeah, about a year.

And um, what led you to include the noise monitors?

Is that in response?

It's not advertising on Instagram.

I was like, oh, looks useful.

Okay.

So it's not that I was not solving up existing problem.

I just saw an advertising, it's like, oh, that's a pretty cool technology.

Because it's not only noise, but it's not cameras, I don't understand how it works, but it tells you how many people are there.

And I thought you it also lets you know they're pets.

I guess C either something out of our own label.

So I still advertising a line.

I was like, oh no, that makes sense to have it.

Okay.

Thank you.

So um my I had a couple questions, and I just caught this in something you said.

Do you not live there?

Mm-hmm.

I live seven minutes away with traffic or three without traffic.

Okay.

Do you is this do you manage multiple Airbnbs?

Not just that one.

Just so you s rented this house for the specific reason, to run this.

Okay.

And then when the neighbors when I think it was Nancy from code enforcement, right?

Because there had been complaints, you did not have the noise monitor, then?

I don't know what I'm I don't know how old is the complaint you're talking about.

The only complaint, the only complaint I was worth I was for that's why I just I asked.

Yeah, because the only complaint I was aware of is a guest knock at my door late at night.

That was so I bought a sign with a light uh to correct that.

Um and again, I don't understand how that happened because any GPS you use put you right in front of the door.

Right.

And if they talk across the street it's actually even versus hot numbers.

So, I think last time I messed this up.

Does anybody else have any questions or comments for the applicant?

No.

Okay, thank you so much.

I am now going to close uh the public portion of this and bring it back to my fellow commissioners for discussions.

So I would just like to talk about how we frame this discussion, um, because I think we can go in a lot of different directions here, and there's a lot of questions about timing or complaints or noise or things like that.

Um, but to me the sort of bottom line of this is that the request is for the conditional use permit for the short-term rental, um for a short-term rental that has been operating for years, um, without a permit.

And in our city, we do have the bed and breakfast um ordinance that we can try to apply to this, um, but it doesn't match up exactly because bed and breakfast is generally seen as a hosted um scenario, and um generally the properties that have been approved under that have been hosted.

So I'm uncomfortable with us as a planning commission making decisions about a short-term rental, a specific short-term rental when our city as a whole has not completed an ordinance about short-term rentals overall.

Um there's a lot of things to be considered in something like that.

Obviously, you know, what are what are the safety issues, what are the noise issues, w should they be allowed in neighborhoods, should they be in other parts of the city?

There's a lot of things that I think need to be thought through as a whole city.

So I guess what I would propose to the group here is to consider should we be considering this at all at this time, or should we wait until uh we allow the city to come forward with an ordinance on short-term rentals?

Apologies, can I interrupt?

Uh so the bed and breakfast in findings or even the definition of what a bed and breakfast in is there is no criteria or explicit language that says that it needs to be hosted or unhosted.

So that's really not a requirement under the bed and breakfast in the chair if I can just yeah add some structural comment.

So um the request before the commission is the CUP and it's essentially you can think of it as the applicant trying to legalize the short-term rental.

And so I would recommend that the commission when you were discussing go off of the findings that are required for CUP, whether or not you know the commissioners think that you can make them or not and if not then I would recommend that you say why because before you there's if there are findings there's not findings for um being able to make the findings for the CP but there's not um sp specifics about you know the contrary and so I would I would just add that if you're talking um and thinking that direction then um go off of the findings and articulate why that is the case.

I I appreciate what sh you're saying and I the last time we had to deal with a um situation like this I think I said like boy oh boy wouldn't be great if the city kind of you know picked up their bootstraps and wrote an ordinance and I think that's probably coming down the road but I also think that we kind of have to kind of play the hands over cards with Delta a little bit here and we I don't want to as much as I agree with what you're saying I would love to um everybody that applies for a CUP under the bed and breakfast however antiquated that is um we can't wait for the how many years it's gonna take to get an Airbnb ordinance on the books of the city so while it is you know um we're kind of have to make do with the language that we are given I do think that it it we could make a decision tonight regarding this specific applicant um I have a while I've got the mic uh I have a quick question for staff too that can we do that right now or are we just discussing so what I want to just understand is the time frame um uh page put you on the spot so the applicant was given notice uh as part of the agenda report on March 2025 that they needed to apply for a CUP.

Uh they were actually given notice that uh CUP was required in August of 2025.

Okay.

Where did I see March?

Oh March of this year uh planning wrote a letter to the property owner indicating that uh any continuance of the short-term rental operation uh is a violation of the municipal code okay um was the applicant told in August of 2025 that same thing that right so the applicant was told in August of 2025 hey you're operating you know this outside of the the ordinance you need to apply for CUP and until you do you need to not have it for 30 days or less is that correct that's correct.

And how many times would you say that he the applicant was informed of I know you put it up on a slide I think it's I'm actually looking at it but uh put that into uh English for me.

At least two times from the plan uh from planning staff and appears at least two times from code enforcement okay so a total of four at least okay.

Okay.

So um when I was looking through the findings I was um reading the the resolution and our justification for these findings and I found in my opinion that most of these could be made except the one where um the staff highlight it's it's still highlighted on the screen it's the third finding the maximum length of state for any guy should be no more than one week.

And this is where I have um some hesitation, because on one hand, um this one week maximum length of stay is creating it does tend to create a more increased rate of turnover of guests that are coming to the to the site and leaving.

Whereas if we were to do the extension to the maximum stay of 30 days, which would be an exception under section J, that would it could.

It might not, it's not guaranteed to, but it could reduce the turnover, the guest turnover at the site.

But because it's kind of a hypothetical, we don't really know, it depends on the market.

It's um are people actually going to be there for the whole 30 days, or is that site gonna be mostly for people that are in there for much shorter periods, such as weddings or business conferences, or um they might be vacationing, especially going into the summer?

The 30 days, I think is more of the extreme end, the extent of this day, but I I don't I couldn't say that that would be the norm.

Um whether the 30 days would not impact the residential character, I can see the argument for that because of the lower turnover, but I think using the exception for the bed and breakfast in findings um would be more of the if we're looking at these conditional use permits and we're looking at specific findings for bed and breakfast ends, we would want to first confirm that the first nine findings would be there, and then if you couldn't make them the findings A, C or E, then is that exception does the benefit of the exception outweigh the negative impacts of it?

And I don't feel a strong conviction right now at this point that um making the exception for the maximum length of stay uh would change the outcome of the um of the operations of the Airbnb.

It could be shorter, it could be longer, and so um at this point I'm still kind of lukewarm on whether to approve or deny, but I think my lack of conviction does speak to me in some ways about what action we would take as commission.

Could you go back to the other slide?

Um page three of the RESO it says that we need to find that the establishment operation of the bed and breakfast use will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare as a project conforms with applicable land use regulations governing the establishment of such a use.

I think what I'm having a hard time with is that norm when what I was reading was that this approval runs with the land, not with the applicant, and normally in a housing subdivision that we see the applicant subsequently becomes the owner because of some sort of purchase and sale option agreement or the like, and so there is an ultimate end point, you know, with that vesting tentative map or design review approval that we do, and here I'm having a hard time because the owner is not here, and so how will I know that if Mr.

Krauss leaves, that since that approval runs with the land, how is another applicant supposed to determine that there's no public health safety or welfare?

So I can answer that.

Um page six of the resolution.

There is a condition, condition of approval number 14.

It says that this use permit shall remain valid only so as long as the host remains the same individual and entity that applied for this permit.

If ownership of the short-term rental changes, the authorization for the short term rental shall automatically expire.

So this one does not run with the land, so he can't sell his business and that entity becomes somebody else.

No, it's under this ownership or this authorization, and if it's any other person, um besides I believe Hector Cross, who is authorized to operate this business, will not be able to operate the business at this site, it would be expired automatically.

That's the that's the condition that's been incorporated.

But I I do understand what you're getting at though, because we are normally interacting with the owner in this situation, and that was something that was referred to as well that council member Silva had previously noted that a CUP is normally with the owner.

Is to make the finding when the applicant is currently in violation of our code.

I think that's that's the that's the hard part that I'm trying to figure out.

Um because in these conditions that you've assigned on page six, for example, it says maximum guest count of 10 at all times.

I I don't see some of this stuff, I didn't see that consistent with the business plan, but I could be wrong.

Um my question is we we've now the planning commission has now this is the second time where this has come before us, they've been in violation.

There's been the the applicants are astute very, very well versed, you know, tons of research, but then notwithstanding any research that they provided to us, there was an unknown of the ordinance, and then subsequently operating in violation.

So it was almost like coming back here to retroactively.

So I I guess the question is is that is okay for us to do for us to review findings even when an item is in violation, or or does, or do they have to truly take it down like what the code enforcements say and then we can make the findings?

Well, that's um, I guess part of the consideration for making the findings because the I mean the ordinance is there as a requirement, and so you know, it it it doesn't preclude somebody from, for example, if they didn't know about it or they were, you know, they were just in violation, they want to come and legalize their proposal, um, or the use.

So it doesn't that process itself is not prohibited under the code.

Um, and so that that can't be done, but but but again, because the CUP requires these findings, I think that's a part of the consideration for the commission about you know how that would how the uh the the facts before you and the testimony before you um how that can lead you to make the findings or not, or you know, impose conditions and that sort of thing.

So I think my follow-up question to that would be can we as a planning commission deny a CUP based on uh blatant violations knowingly violating uh the ordinance after being told multiple times, for example.

Like I I can rent this place right now for tonight for $500 for one night.

Right, I and I would say if that's that's the thought, then again um the commission should express why it is that you know it leads you to not be able to make one of the findings and again these findings on the screens are for the bed and breakfast in ordinance.

So there's the two additional findings right on this page about the CUP, which ties into the butterbreak um ordinance.

Sorry, I'm like full of questions today, but go ahead.

I will say that um you know, for as someone who looks at laws and regulations and helps people comply with them all the time, it's much better to have the regulatory framework in place for a non compliant um entity, and then say, okay, now that we have this framework in place, then we can show you where there's room for improvement.

And so one of the benefits of having the COP is now the city can point to something or and say that the planning commission has approved this permit with these conditions of approval, um, and then review those and say, okay, well, are you in compliant?

Are you in compliance with those conditions of approval, or do you continue to be non-compliant with those conditions of approval?

So it adds a little bit more weight, having a COP that runs with the land, and um I think it hopes to avoid the issue of if there is no COP, then it's the status quo, which is continuing to operate the short-term rental without a permit.

Can I just ask what are the penalties for running what are the penalties for uh running a short-term rental without uh a permit?

I mean you get a warning, you get told that you should do the same.

Right.

Um, what actually happens?

Ryan, you usually there's a notice violation or code enforcement, and I think the code um the general co-enforcement structure authorizes the city to um, you know, to either file complaint or um impose fines.

Um I think the fines of a set amount I think is a hundred dollars um per violation, but it's it's depending on what the city is taking um in each instance.

Um and so, you know, if for example there's multiple violations, then you know the penalties that you might decide to to pursue those penalties in those instances.

Versus if you already have a CUP and you violate those conditions, then what are the penalties for that?

You lose the CO CUP?

Right, the yes, the well, the the process is so that the C UP can be reviewed, um, you know, reconsider and can be revoked.

Right.

And um the so the the C UP can be revoked if there's violation of the conditions, um, and there is a condition now in the in the resolution for for that to happen.

Um it's number 17.

Thank you.

I have a question about number 19.

It says all outstanding fees owed to the city, including staff time spent processing this application shall be paid in full prior to the issuance of a site development permit, building permit, or commencement of the business operation, including guest stays.

In this case, would those outstanding fees be for the prior three years of operating uh the short-term rental?

The applicable fees that that would have been.

I believe it would be the fees related to the conditional use permit.

Not the prior operation before the application was submitted, I think I would say it's um having the conditional use permit in place would be uh more advantageous because then we have a framework to work with.

If if there continues to be documented noncompliance, then uh we can go back to the condition 17, which would be coming back before the commission to review the permit to decide whether to amend those conditions of approval or to um determine what further action there would be would be needed.

And so, I think with the benefit of having that framework in place plus the fact that most of the findings are met, um could be a net positive for for the application.

What I would say is if right now everything is meeting the findings of the ordinance with the exception of the 30 days, then what I'm looking at, because we all read all of the public comments that came in, right?

So we have that in the back of our head.

So to your point, if we read the conditions on page six, do we feel as a commission that those conditions address all of the public comments that were received?

I I don't think so.

I mean, the the issue we have, I think, is that we have regulations.

They're not perfect, um, but it falls to us as the planning commission to be discretionary about how we feel uh about this without a framework about CUP or uh Airbnb uh ordinance that's coming down the road at some point, and you know, it's this is gonna rely on um controls from the owner from the applicant, and what we've seen over the last since August of last year is for instructions to take it down.

Uh I'm looking at the reviews, and I can see that at least 14 people have stayed there on a short-term basis during that time.

Uh I don't feel comfortable granting an approval tonight just based on the what we have been shown and what we are still now seeing to Commissioner Count's point, and she could book it right now, and I understand that Airbnb isn't perfect, but I run an Airbnb and I know that you can control that.

So that's where I come down.

I would say maybe the place where that fits in in terms of uh the conditional use permit findings would be under item number two, that the proposed use, including any conditions imposed will not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare.

Um I think I find it hard to uh to accept that finding when we're in a situation of noncompliance.

Go ahead.

The other point I would make to the um to the point of the conditional use permit is our decision's not the end of the conversation, and so whatever comes after this, you know the the Airbnb or the short-term rental will still be there, it's still gonna be the neighbors and the applicant working together to address the issues that are going on between them.

And so we are um in some ways one point or one step in this entire process to run a successful short-term rental business in a neighborhood that doesn't necessarily agree with the location of that short-term rental.

Um, and so uh with respect to public health safety and welfare, um the working relationship between the applicant and the neighbors is a very critical point to examine.

And I was hoping that um when hearing from the applicant and hearing from public comments that there would be more of a dialogue about you know how is this short-term rental impacting the neighbors?

Um less so about you know, while economic vitality isn't one of our um priorities as a city, and it's good to have um it should not be the sole focus of the short-term rental and the benefits that it brings.

So I think the the way that the um application was framed was a little too heavy on the economic benefits and less so on how are we working with the neighbors on this site.

I think there's always room to continue the conversation, and that's where I think um this permit would be one step in a long longer process to um obtain the goodwill of the neighbors and to be a good neighbor yourself as a person running a short term rental.

So you're thinking this UP would be good.

I think the COP so the two questions I have are if we don't approve the COP then well what's going to change about the whole situation.

I think the COP does give us a little bit more teeth and it gives um people that are aware that what there is the COP they have the ability to come back and say to the planning commission hey look now that the COP is here this is what we're seeing can you review it suggest uh modifications amendments in ways that will help the applicant of this UP move forward in ways that are more um neighborly I guess is a good word in a way that's more neighborly to the to the location.

So your assumption is that the not owner but operator would um continue to uh operate illegally the short-term rental regardless of what uh whether there's a CUP in place and therefore the only way that we can help control that is to offer a C UP which then allows the short-term rental my understanding that correctly I I think that's my working assumption I I don't because from what I've seen so far the fact that there hasn't been a permit in place hasn't really stopped um the operation of the Airbnb it's still listed on the sites apparently and you're still able to book it so that's where I think you know if we what can we change about the situation that would make it hopefully a step in a direction maybe not necessarily the right one but one that starts the conversation to now that we are in compliance or we have a permit in place then where do we go from here so 719 where I personally do not from from what I'm gathering this the applicant lives in Walnut Creek and so that's that's kind of what I I gathered um or I gleaned and so um the applicant has done tons of research and he now is he acknowledges the ordinance he acknowledges the enforcement that has come through um and it is and so that's that's in one category so I do I do like to believe that once someone has the knowledge of something that they can subsequently implement it.

The part that I'm having a hard time with I'm having a hard time making a finding when we're sitting here and yet there wasn't that the um it wasn't taken down I think that's the part that I'm having a very very hard time with and so I think what I would be more comfortable with I think the business plan is going in the right direction.

I think the conditions of approval are are um while while the ordinance is not super robust there's always it's interesting and Claire you as a land use attorney can there's always an intent behind an ordinance right and unfortunately here the intent you know it isn't it's simple but that's the problem was that it left for a a lot of interpretation um and so I would feel more comfortable is if we started clean.

So if it was truly taken down so that we can be in compliance and then we can come back here when it's compliant because it was truly taken down.

It shouldn't take that long because all of the the business plan was put together to be in compliance with the findings that are required of us.

To me, that's how that's how I I'm seeing that I can make those findings by first starting out in a compliant state because otherwise I'm having a hard time of how are the requirements of the findings being able to be met if currently the current requirement to take it down is subsequently not being met.

Exactly.

So normally if you have a C UP, the threat of not meeting any of the conditions is revoking the CUP.

We're already in a situation where there is no CUP, so there's nothing to revoke, um, but it feels like it would be a reward to provide a C UP at this point in time.

Um, and that's where I think my discomfort is as well.

Um it in terms of continuing to uh get income from this property, um there's it it is still legal to rent for more than 30 days.

Um you can still hire a gardener to keep up the bond regardless of how long people are staying there.

Um so there are things that can be done here, but continuing that if if we don't as a city in fact have um enforcement for these short term rentals, then I think we need to look into we need to recommend that the city council look at that as well, um, because are we just continuing to allow these short-term rentals to uh run illegally acr across the city with no um no repercussions for them doing so?

Yeah, and just to clarify, so the city does you are able the city is able to enforce the code and say you're not you know you're supposed to get a C UP but you didn't, and so your short term rental is not you know in compliance as as as here.

So if granting a C O P would give the property that or the applicant that right to do it.

So just just a clarification.

But nothing was done this the city didn't it it didn't impose any fines when the violation was provided.

Is that why a bit of conjecture, but is that why we think that it wasn't taken down, even though the there was multiple notices?

Um, again, it's speak exactly to that, but I think there's some time differences when that the one the application came in trying to get a C UP and the notices went out, and so there's that process.

Um, but the the point I'm trying to make is just that the city still has the code enforcement mechanism, um, you know, regardless of whether you have a C UP or not, but the C P gives the additional right to operate.

My other question is because nobody I don't think any of us want to to deny something that that is in substantial conformance or meets the findings of of an objective standard in this case an ordinance that has been passed.

And so how long would it take to come back here if it was taken down to first be in compliance because at this point the staff report has been written, the conditions have been made, the findings have been made.

I think that's more of a question for staff.

It was not gonna take six months to come back here.

So what exactly so you want to see the applicant to come in compliance, take everything off advertisement off, and then come back for reconsideration of the CUP?

Yes, almost like a can a con a continued item.

I think that's more on the commission.

I mean, how much time do you want to do?

Because Claire, Claire, could it be continued?

Could this be continued to a date certain?

Because it takes doesn't it take doesn't it take twenty-four hours to take something down?

What what about the concept of denying the application right now and then having them reapply to the C UP?

What w we we can say, okay, you have a month, you have 45 days or whatever, and that's fine, but that's not really what we're here to do.

Yeah, that's that's also an option.

So the two options that we have are we can continue it to a date certain um c is there with a finding that they would have to take it down within 24 hours, or you deny it.

That those are the two.

Go ahead.

Um if I could have some clarity on the condition number sixteen.

So this one is the one that says that um the you shall be established within one year of the effective date.

Is that a way to say that sorry, that's condition of approval on page seven.

Is that a way to say that um the applicant has to substantially comply with the conditions of approval within one year?

That is more um that may not be very applicable in this case, but uh is more for the applicant to pursue the use.

And so if they got a permit uh a C UP but they don't do what they're asking the the commission to allow them to do within one year, then we would consider that lapse.

What if we so um maybe another option we could do is um I know in the past when we've looked at permits, we can um say that we'll have the permit be valid as long as there's no um complaint of a noncompliance, assuming that the applicant starts clean and then go from there, say for a period of 90 days.

And then if there is a complaint and code enforcement goes out and finds that there is no compliance at that time, then um the permit would automatically lapse.

Um I'm sorry, you you were talking about if you the commission grants a C UP?

To if we approve the COP, yes, and then have that condition go in, um it would be valid until a until the first instance of non compliance.

Um so if the C UP if the C UP is granted um in order to revoke it, you have to give the applicant an opportunity to um to be heard about the replication, and so that's why it's uh is a use that's granted for the for the for the site, right?

And so it wouldn't the condition wouldn't be able to say it it's going to lapse because there is a complaint, but you have to, you know, kind of find the violation and then you have to give the the the permittee an opportunity to be heard about what the permit will be revoked or not.

Yeah, my concern is this is opening a can of worms.

If we bend over backwards to make exceptions and create a situation for this particular situation to be able to move forward, we are telling we're sending a message to the rest of the city that you don't have to comply with uh the things that we tell you are already the ordinance, you don't have to take it down.

Um we're sending a message that I think is the wrong message.

Um I think in order to um make sure that anyone who wants to run a short-term rental properly in the city needs to do it properly and they need to take it down when we tell them to take it down, not five times, not you know, three months later, this is not okay.

So uh I don't think that we need to bend over backwards in any way for this applicant.

They should have done things right from the beginning.

Um so with that I would like to move that we deny this conditional use permit um on the basis that uh item two the proposed use will uh not be detrimental to the public health safety or welfare.

We cannot find that item in compliance.

And I would just add, um, before there's a second on a motion, um, that if that's the decision of the commission, I would um because you have articulated um you know reasons why uh the commission doesn't think the findings can be made, um, but I would suggest that we um because there aren't written findings in the record right now to uh for a denial, um, then I would suggest that we bring back a resolution um at the next meeting um and just uh for the commission to confirm that that the findings um are you know consistent with what you've expressed um in the meeting, you know, consistent with your decision.

That's just the firm the basis of the data.

So and I think uh Commissioner Cowan, it's it's to it's to make the application once in compliance.

Could we do that?

Is that is that what the Commissioner Cowan could add?

No, I'm not seeking to add her motion is to my motion is to deny, but what I'm hearing is that rather than actually denying it tonight, we would be asking staff to come back with a resolution that explains the reason for the So you can you can make the motion to deny, and the commission can vote on that motion tonight, and the decision will be made, but we're just um going to bring a resolution back to affirm the basis for that decision, um, as reflected in tonight's discussion.

Thank you.

Or seconded, and I think that's a great idea.

Um, yes, Commissioner Moran.

Yes, uh Commissioner Kwok.

No, no.

Chair Needing, yes.

Okay.

Motion passes.

So it's three three.

Okay, um moving on to item 3C.

Application number Y26017, um, location 1534 locust, street for another CUP to extend alcohol hours.

Does staff have a presentation?

Oh, beautiful.

Tag in it.

I'll tag it in here.

Okay, good evening, Commissioners.

Uh Simmer Gill, senior planner with the city, and we are here tonight to consider the conditional use permit to extend the alcohol hours at Daryush restaurant that's located at 1534 Locust Street.

And just to quickly orient you with the site, uh, the restaurant is uh located within the uh Walnut Creek downtown um area on Locust Street.

It is 1,710 square feet in size, and there is a uh small 105 square foot outdoor dining area, and uh the surrounding area does consist of similar uh restaurant uh retail type uses.

The site is on pedestrian retail, which does allow restaurant uses by right, and in order to serve alcohol, um uh administrative use permit is required to serve alcohol till 11 p.m.

And tonight the request is for a conditional use permit to sell sell alcohol um past 11 p.m.

And uh here is uh the current operations for the restaurant.

Um the it the current operations were approved under a administrative use permit.

The restaurant operates under a type 47 um alcohol business license, and the hours of operation are 11:30 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

seven days a week.

Alcohol is served both in the outdoor and indoor uh dining area of the restaurant, and outdoor dining permit does limit the alcohol service to 11 p.m.

And the security measures on site uh include uh training and certification, the RBS uh training required for all employees that are um serving alcohol, and a on-site manager is responsible to oversee the um alcohol service, and there are security cameras installed in place on site.

So the requests before you tonight are the proposed hours would be extended till 1 a.m.

for alcohol consumption, and uh the 30-minute last call reflects the 1230 a.m.

Which is the end time for the sales and service of the alcohol, however, it uh the consumption will uh remain till 1 a.m.

And here are just some site photos and the floor plan uh to show you the restaurant space and the area that I have highlighted blue on the floor plan essentially shows uh the the seating area and then there's a smaller outdoor seating area right in front of the restaurant, and um the security camera locations are um provided with that symbol.

Let me see if I could use this with the symbol.

So they do have um cameras installed throughout the restaurant at the rear as well as along the front entrance and within the restaurant.

So tonight uh the planning commission in order to approve this project uh will need to make the standard conditional use permit findings that are listed um before you.

Um the all of these findings have been addressed um in the draft resolution that's a included attachment one of your um packet tonight, and the additional uh findings that the planning commission needs to consider are also listed here and again um outlined in or addressed in full detail in the uh draft resolution, but I'm happy to go over any if needed.

And this project is exempt um from CEQA as the extension of alcohol hours does not expand the floor area and does not alterate alter the um overall restaurant use.

So staff does recommend tonight that the planning commission uh determine the project is exempt from SQL under class uh section 15 301 and adopt the draft resolution attachment one approving the conditional use permit, allowing alcohol sales and service uh for the restaurant till 12 30 a.m.

and consumption till 1 a.m.

seven days a week.

And that is all I have uh for my presentation, but happy to answer any questions.

Perfect.

Thank you so much.

Any questions for staff?

And the applicant is here tonight.

Perfect.

Thanks for your patience.

Um just how does this timing uh match up with the surrounding uh restaurants nearby?

The uh many of the surrounding restaurants and I believe it's um Vanessa's bistro as well as it the Brodericks, uh many of the ones on Loka Street uh do have extended alcohol hours uh that have been approved.

And the Walnut Creek uh PD is also here tonight, and they have confirmed that this restaurant, since they've been operating under the administrative uh use permit, which is the AUP, there's been no calls for service.

Perfect, anyone else?

Nope.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

So with that, I'm gonna open up the public hearing.

And then if the applicant would like to come, you have 15 minutes.

Hello, everyone.

Sorry, we're getting okay.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

I'm happy to have answered any question you have.

Oh okay.

Yeah, I mean, got it.

Um may I ask um what has there been just a lot of business and um folks that have been is that is this like what is causing the request?

It helps obviously alcohol is kind of a nighttime customers really like to enjoy their food with their drinks, you know, and our my food is because of the kebabs and grills.

You know, it works very well with the liquor, you know.

Yeah, and we lose a lot of customers by having being closed at 11 because we don't have alcohol and those things.

It helps the business a lot.

Okay, anyone else?

Any questions?

I I actually have a question only because when we've approved this, it it had has come up.

It says um, is live entertainment music dance areas proposed occasionally, not all the time.

Yeah, I mean, we don't put in a restaurant to the dance floor.

You know, we just kind of when there is a birthday party that they want to have a like a solo music or a DJ for the specific night.

Uh yeah, that's that was me.

Okay, perfect.

Yeah, I'm I asked that just because the last time this came that there was a whole thing about dancing and um for the applicants is not any questions for the applicant.

No, thank you so much.

Are there any public speakers?

I do not have any speaker cards.

Okay, so the applicant, I you don't have to come back up here, but you do have the opportunity.

So, um, seeing no other public speakers, I'm going to close the public hearing portion and I'll bring it back to the commission for any discussion questions.

I feel that it's a very straightforward application.

So uh I would like to go ahead and make the motion to approve the conditional use permit application Y two six-017 as presented.

I'll second um thank you.

Um Commissioner Count?

Yes.

Commissioner Quok.

Yes.

Uh Commissioner Moran.

And Chair Needing.

Yes.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Thank you for your patience.

Um, okay, so now I'd like to move on to item number five, which is commission considerations.

Nothing anything from staff.

No, nothing from staff.

Okay, then I think we can adjourn.

Thank you so much.

Um, I think I'm not sure.