Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you Captions test, one, two, captions test. Thank you. Thank you. you

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. Perfect. 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. Have they, I want to ask 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 4A, which I believe it has been postponed. 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 Y2506, the Krause short-term rental. Does staff have a presentation?

And before we begin, I wanted to introduce Maile Sheehan. She is the city's new assistant director and we are very thrilled to have her to be a part of our team and also to lead our team. So please welcome Maile.

Welcome. Thank you all. Oh, 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.

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. 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 Sugar Berry Court. The site is developed with a single story, approximately 2,100 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 Sugar Berry Court. Surrounding land uses include similar single family residences, Valley Verde Elementary School, and nearby commercial and community serving uses. For reference, the slide includes a vicinity map and an aerial image of the property as viewed from Mandarin Lane. Before discussing the project description, staff would like to provide additional background regarding this application. On August 5th of 2025, a code enforcement case was opened for the property following reports that the residence was operating as an unpermitted short-term rental. Subsequently, on November 6th of 2025, the applicant submitted a conditional use permit application requesting for an unhosted short-term rental at the property. 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 four. 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 Vrbo. 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 points for the home, 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 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 1 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. OK, and that concludes staff's presentation for tonight. Staff is available to answer any of the questions the Commission may have. Furthermore, the applicant, Mr. Krause, 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.

All right. 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. It sounds like the code enforcement was called out to the site to look at the complaints from the 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

So yes, I did check with the code enforcement officers and looked at the code case that was open for this project. Most of the concerns raised or neighbors just wanted the city to be notified that there are unpermitted operations on site. That was the primary comments that were received.

Okay, thank you.

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

Thank you.

Anyone else? I do have a question. You know what? Why don't we just, we can allow the applicant and then I'll have questions after that. Sure. 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.

OK, I don't know exactly your title, so city staff, thank you for having me, giving me the opportunity. Attendees, thank you for being here. So in the next 15 minutes or so, I would like to explain to you how I manage this property and why it should be approved. So my objective for tonight, oh, sorry. Yeah, please speak into the mic. So my objectives for tonight will be, well, it's like all kind of like old code instead of the check mark. So understand the current 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 635 Money Lane should be granted CUP, I will address any neighbor's concern, and then Q&A. If required, then the presentation is the business plan and list of all the requirements that I was asked to meet for this and that I met. So I want to give an overview of short-term rental in Walnut Creek. Any guesses how many short-term rentals operate in Walnut Creek today? Any guess? Throw me a number. Anybody? 30. 30. Anybody else? 173. Now, 700 or 700, 173 operate in Walnut Creek. day 173 short-term rentals there are seven on Almond Avenue so this is very important for the city for the city because this brings close to 800 guests a month of the city guess that got the Robert Plaza have dinner downtown to 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 Walnut 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 going to get strangers in their cars? Who's going to drive strangers? Who's going to invite strangers to stay in the house? Yet today, the multi-million public company traded with 9 million active entrepreneurs worldwide and 10 million Uber drivers. Okay, why Walnut Creek, right? When I was doing my research about where would it make 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 Walnut Creek? I did my research. So, short-term rentals don't host a typical tourist, right? Walnut Creek has Jorn Muir and has Kaiser. Guests have stayed 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 going to 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? Other common guests are people that come for weddings. There's a lot of wedding venues 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, Berkeley versus Stanford, et cetera, right? A short-term rental provides a family environment provides the feel of being at 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 of homeless and potential crime issues. Hotels are also super expensive there. And people just stay here and go to Napa. Okay, all the cities nearby. Alamo is a little cocoon, right? Tiny, tiny. Has like two off ramps 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 5,200 short-term rentals operating on the East Bay. which provide $15 million on a monthly revenue for the East Bay. These are, talking about examples of what certain rental service accommodates, as I said, the family gathering of a grandma in hospice, I gave you that example. I had a family whose wife had major seizure at John Muir. They arrive three days before the surgery, or they stay during the surgery, and then they stay like a couple of weeks for post-op, because she needed to go back to your room for post-op. They rented a hospital bed, they rented a big recliner, no hotel's gonna be able to do that. It provides an environment that helps things. Another real 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 Alta Bates. 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. That's an actual guess, right? hosted some weddings, not the wedding per se, but you know, the bridesmaids and the bride and that kind of thing. That's what I said about family trips regarding sports related for local teams. So regarding misconceptions about short-term rentals, parties, they're not allowed. I mean, to be in the short-term rental platforms, Airbnb, Bibbata, 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. Parking. Most people that stay at short-term rentals either Uber or rent Minimans or SUVs. I don't think I've never, ever have more than three cars parked at the house. Noise. 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, an identification on my phone. I also have cameras on the entry garage and backyard. 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 in the future, a judgmental host is not going to allow a guest who has bad reviews, right? So you cannot read this, but it's a small font. 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 send a house? If 85 people before that have given five star reviews and have written comments, left the house 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 noise, crowd, environmental factors. So I explain a little bit about the Miro device. It controls, well, detects noise levels, crowd sizes. Actually, it tells me how many people are in the house. It tells me if there are pets. It tells me if people are smoking. But smoke detectors don't detect smoking. They detect fire. Right, so tell me if somebody's smoking. Either Sapphire actually connects to 911. So anyway, oh shit, I only have four minutes. Okay, so we still only have three cameras, and I want to address with all respect the neighbor's concern. It's public information, so I have the actual complaints.

I 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. Beautiful. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you for letting me know. Okay. Yeah, I don't know who's who.

Now you know. Perfect.

Yeah, continue. So, Jane McCamish was concerned about closeness to a school. When guests book their 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. I've stayed at dozens of people's short-term rentals. There hasn't been any concern, but I would not take them, right? They 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 concerning zoning violations. The zoning of the house or the neighborhood is not changing. Parking issues, talk about it. It's a residential area, will continue being a residential area. There's not gonna be, this is not gonna open the door for hotels and motels to, you know, move to Sugarberry. 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 pluses there within half a mile of the house. And they are in full support of getting approval because they know that people that are still short-term rentals eat out more often. They buy whole foods, they buy at Trader Joe's, 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 have the background check. They have good reviews. Is that an area for tourists? Yeah, the woodlands may be not an area for tourists. And most people that come are not tourists, as I explained. 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? No neighborhoods into hotel areas. Again, there's two different zonings. There's not going to be hotels at the woodlands or nearby just because this is approved. When they 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. Minimum stay is three days. Party house, again, the platforms don't approve parties. My minimum stay is three days. So if somebody were to try to throw a party, that would be pretty expensive to throw a party. And I explain how noise levels are controlled. Elaine Coyne said, do you remember, people have forgotten what happened in Orinda. What happened in Orinda? About four or five years ago, a short-term rental in Orinda had a huge party. There was like 25 people or something like that. There was a bunch of cars and music and whatever. Why do we all know about Orinda? Why do we remember the incidents at Orinda? Because it's the only one. If there would be instances, negative things happening at Airbnbs with parties all the time, we wouldn't remember Orinda. If Columbine would have been the only mass shooting, we all remember it. There's one every three days, so we don't even have to remember which one was there. So we all remember Rinda because he was a complete outlier. Elaine also complained that it's bad to have Chick-fil-A in the neighborhood. Well, Chick-fil-A, that was 15. that was 15. thank you so much for your presentation the only code enforcement i received was that somebody complained that people knock at the door of some neighbor house at night to ask for the address the house is clearly for mark with light numbers and i tried Apple, Google, Waze, and the drive-by Tesla, and it puts you at the door.

Okay. So, that's where it went to slow. Thank you. Does anyone have questions for the applicant? Yes.

Thank you. Sure. How many times would you say that the city has asked for the listing to be taken down while you were applying for the CEP?

Twice, I believe. And one thing that I explained to... Wade, I don't remember his name, sorry, last name, Code Enforcement Wade. He sent me screenshots of bookings. I sent him a screenshot of the platforms showing that I have modified it to a minimum of 31 days and explained to people book months ahead, especially weddings. Like right now, bookings for October 27. 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 sent him the screenshots of the bookings modified to 31 days.

And is it listed currently?

As 31 days.

It's just 31 days? Uh-huh. Are you sure? Yeah, 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 in the platform, because you shouldn't.

Okay. Because that's what I found.

The platform make errors. Like, actually, they took $2,400 of an account without a reason. But if you saw, I will call them, because it shouldn't be. I modified it.

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

If you go to ,, 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 can, I will call them as soon as I leave because that's going in their system.

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

For October.

Okay.

That's all I have.

Are there any? Oh, go ahead.

All right. Thank you for the presentation. It was very informative. I did want to understand, so the number 173 short-term rentals, where did that number come from? I wanted to kind of understand that data point and see it.

So there's a website called AirDNA that groups gathers all the data from Vrbo, 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, when I use my presentation, like Walnut Creek actually has 5% less short-term rentals than last year. But that data comes from all the different platforms that aggregate the data, analyze the financials, the logistics and all that. It's actual current data.

Okay. So to clarify, the timeframe would be for one year, 12 months, 173 listings, or 173? Today. Today, 173?

Well, like three days ago when I put the presentation.

Okay, okay.

So it's operating currently.

Okay. And because it's an aggregate, that could mean that 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 go by address.

OK. All right. Thank you. Sure.

Is the property owner here?

No, but there's a letter that Steven has saying that he is okay with. He doesn't have anything to do with the business.

It's just a letter. Does the property owner live far away or was unable to attend for some reason?

I was told that he didn't need to be here, and he doesn't have anything to do with the operation. He's just a landlord.

Okay, thank you. And then my other question is, what date did you first post this online as a short-term rental?

February of 23 And when 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 of the woman that talks. I was don't know there were no regulations And actually there is an interview with Chip Griffin, who had a planning from an 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.

I wanted to ask, it looks like you've done a lot of research in in your presentation, did you know about the bed and breakfast ordinance? 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 CUP?

When I began, I was told that there was no regulation. And I was not surprised because there are cities that there's no regulation, they don't care, just do it, right? And there's some different levels of logistics to do it, right? Yeah. The only letter that I received, the only complaint that I received, or was made aware personally, was the one about people knocking on neighbor's doors at night. never received any other complaint or identification or anything. When I began this process working with Steven, then he told me about the bed and breakfast ordinance regulations. He gave me a list of the things that need to be met to be approved, and all of them were met at the bottom of the presentation. So all that was required by the city to be met, it's met.

Are there any further questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

Oh, I'm so sorry to see you. You're good, you're good.

So I might have missed this. Have you discussed the operations with the neighbors? 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. I was unpleasantly surprised when I was told that there were six neighbors complaining, that none of them addressed it with me personally. Several of them have my business cards. I talked to a few of them in and out, driving, doing something in the front yard or whatever. And I was planning about, thinking about talking to them, like, you know, in the last week or whatever. But honestly, I was kind of intimidated. Because, I mean, somebody sent seven emails to Steven, right? So I didn't think that talking to them in person would have been a good outcome. So that's why I chose to get their concerns address each one of them on a slide saying, hey, let me talk about these misconceptions, right? There's no reasoning. There's ways to control noise. People get screened. People get background checked, that kind of thing.

Thank you.

Sure.

Okay, thank you. Sure. You can sit down now. 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? Two minutes each. Okay, I did get that right. Two minutes. Should I? Yes, please. Yes, please.

Okay, Jan Warren, please come up.

Jan Warren, I live in the Woodlands, past 40 years. My neighbor, who was, you know, door knocked at 3 a.m. Her husband's been in and out of the hospital four times the past month, and 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. My driveway is across the lawn of... 635 so My initial concern was that the city was not getting revenue from this property and it's still a concern now that I know how many others there are. 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 or what, and then you don't hear back, and then you get sent to somebody else. And a lot of this, of course, we didn't know. I mean, I went to 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. I will say, I'll probably run out of time. Last weekend, we had people who were visiting or renting, and I went to put my garbage can out, and there was the car. 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 driveway and mine a place to park. A primary question I have is the 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 can't be there because it was.

Thank you.

Jim McCamish. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jim McCamish. Oh, my name is Jim McCamish. My wife Jane and I live at 714 Mander Lane. in the neighborhood, along with our neighbors, I have submitted comments to the Planning Commission on this application, and I appreciate the Commission has taken these comments into consideration. And 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 use permit may be granted unless the required findings are made. And this includes a finding that the use is consistent with the general plan. The draft resolution has concluded that the short-term rental satisfies all of the findings required by the code, but I would disagree with respect to item 1 at section 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 Walnut Creek as a regional destination. and policy 1.1 to protect 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 Section 3A at all that I can see.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So sorry. Jane McCammish. Thank you.

Hi I'm Jane McCammish Jim's wife. 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 three or four times at 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. to loud talking coming from that house. This house, it's a four-bedroom house, approximately 2,100 square feet, and it's advertised on VRBO and Airbnb that it can sleep 14 people. It's an awful lot of people. The number of cars and the transient people in our neighborhood, it's a safety issue for the neighbors. And that's along with the concern that this is going to be a party house. So please, for our public safety, don't approve this conditional use permit. Thank you.

Oh, that's it? OK.

Sorry. Thank you. Are there any questions for any of the public speakers? nope okay now the applicant you have five minutes to come back up here if you wish to be able to okay i guess at the end of at the end of what i was saying which i run out of time is that

You said five, right?

We're getting it, sorry.

I have 10, no. Go ahead. That house has been a rental house for 14 years, right? And there's 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 with dogs that bark 24 hours a day. They can throw parties every single weekend. They can change the oil of the cars on the street, right? There's no filtering. There's no background checks, no criteria. The landlord cares for credit score and income. That's it. There's no concern about the neighborhood. I do, and the houses are one year rental. hey, they're going to have weeds three feet tall, right? 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. If somebody that CAME TO MY HOUSE AND KNOCKED AT 3 IN THE MORNING AT SOMEBODY'S DOOR. DEEPLY APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, BUT AS I SAID, I DROVE FOUR GPSs AND THEY DROVE RIGHT TO THE HOUSE, AND THE HOUSE HAS TWO NUMBERS. SO THAT'S BENEFITING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK IT'S REALLY SAFER, QUIETER POTENTIALLY, THAN HAVE SOMEBODY WITH GOOD CREDIT AND GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE THAT FAMILY OR PERSON WOULD DO, RIGHT? It clearly benefits the local community. I have like close to 50 signatures of people that own businesses or work at Encina Grande, Citrus Marketplace, the Trader Joe's Plaza. I don't remember, there are four plazas, right? I pay people to clean the house, to maintain the yard. There's a handyman. So if this would not be approved, Well, the wallets of several people would hurt. Mine, I would lose about 50% of my family's income.

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

I mean, I would lose my house, basically, probably, you know, where we live. I mean, it's a significant money-generating for me maintaining my family. So I think... As I said, there's many misconceptions about short-term rentals, right? Again, 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 a bronze about that. And I have devices for noise control, devices for crowd control. I live very close. The house is very well maintained. because the 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 in revenue of Walnut Creek, 770 people benefiting Walnut Creek's community financials. So I think that there's still a lot of misconceptions that are not really, I don't know, well-informed. I think that those are like, I don't know, not valid. I don't know what the appropriate way to say it. So anyways.

Thank you so much. Sure. Are there any comments for the applicant or questions? Yes.

Thanks, Patrick. I have a quick question. It's about the reviews. So if somebody stays at your place or any place in Airbnb, they probably get prompted to write a review, what did you think, and all that. How does the timing like that work out?

They have to wish to do it.

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

Mm-hmm.

Okay, thanks. Yeah, sure.

Any other, oh, go ahead.

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

The cameras, yeah. The minute device, just for about a year.

Okay. So 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 decibel numbers that I set on the device, on the website device, yeah, about a year.

And what led you to include the noise monitors? Is that in response?

I saw an advertising on Instagram. I was like, oh. It looks useful. So it's not that I was not solving an existing problem. I just saw an advertising. I was like, oh, that's a pretty cool technology. And it's not only noise, but it's not cameras. I understand how it works. But it tells you how many people are there. And it also lets you know their pets. They document the, I guess, sea. It is something at a ground level. So I saw the advertising online. I was like, oh, that makes sense to have it.

Thank you.

So I had a couple questions, and I just caught this in something you said. Do you not live there?

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

Okay. Do you manage multiple Airbnbs?

Not just that one.

So you 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? Cause there had been complaints. You did not have the noise monitor then.

I don't know what, I don't know how old is the complaint you're talking about. The only complaint, the only complaint I was where I was.

That's why I just, yeah.

Cause the only complaint I was aware of is A guest knocked at my door late at night. So I bought a sign with a light to correct that. And again, I don't understand how that happened. Because any GPS you use puts you right in front of the door. And if they talk across the street, it's actually even versus odd numbers.

OK. Well, I think last time I messed this up.

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

No. OK. Thank you so much. I am now going to close 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. 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 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 for a short-term rental that has been operating for years without a permit and in our city we do have the bed and breakfast ordinance that we can try to apply to this but it doesn't match up exactly because bed and breakfast is generally seen as a hosted scenario and 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. There's a lot of things to be considered in something like that. Obviously, what are the safety issues? What are the noise issues? 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 we allow the city to come forward with an ordinance on short-term rentals.

Apologies. Can I interrupt? 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.

Yeah.

Chair, if I can just add some structural comment. So 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're 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 there are findings there are draft findings for being able to make the findings for the CUP but there's not specifics about you know the contrary and so I would I would just add that if you're talking and thinking in that direction then go off of the findings and articulate why that is

I'll jump in and just say thank you, Commissioner Cowan. I appreciate what you're saying. And the last time we had to deal with a situation like this, I think I said, boy, oh boy, wouldn't it be great if the city kind of picked up their bootstraps and wrote an ordinance. And I think that's probably coming down the road. i also think that we kind of have to kind of play the hands where cards were dealt 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 going to take to get an airbnb ordinance on the books to the city so while it is you know we're kind of have to make do with the language that we are given, I do think that we could make a decision tonight regarding this specific applicant. Well, I've got the mic. I have a quick question for staff, too. Can we do that right now? Or are we just discussing?

Yeah, you could ask the question.

So what I want to just understand is the time frame. And I hate to put you on the spot. So the applicant was given notice as part of the agenda report on March 2025 that they needed to apply for a CUP?

They were actually given notice that a CUP was required in August of 2025. Okay.

Where did I see March?

Oh, March of this year. Planning wrote a letter to the property owner indicating that any continuance of the short term rental operation 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 ordinance, you need to apply for a CUP. Uh, 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 English for me.

At least two times from planning staff and it appears at least two times from code enforcement. Okay. So a total of four at least.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

So when I was looking through the findings, I was reading 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 the staff highlighted. It's still highlighted on the screen. It's the third finding. The maximum length of stay for any guest helping no more than one week. And this is where I have some hesitation. Because on one hand, 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 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. Are people actually going to be there for the whole 30 days, or is that site going to be mostly for people that are in there for much shorter periods, such as weddings or business conferences or They might be vacationing, especially going into the summer. The 30 days I think is more of the extreme end, the extent of the stay, but I couldn't say that that would be the norm. 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 end findings 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 we 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 making the exception for the maximum length of stay would change the outcome, of the operations of the Airbnb, it could be shorter, it could be longer. And so 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? so on 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 welfare as a project conforms to the 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 endpoint, you know, with that vesting tentative map or design review approval that we do in here. I'm having a hard time because the owner is not here. And so how will I know that if Mr. Krause 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. 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 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 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.

The other item I'm having a hard time with is to make the finding when the applicant is currently in violation of our code. I think that's the hard part that I'm trying to figure out. Because in these conditions that you've assigned, On page six, for example, it says maximum guest count of 10 at all times. I don't see some of this stuff, I didn't see that consistent with the business plan, but I could be wrong. So my question is, we've now, the Planning Commission has now, this is the second time where this has come before us, They've been in violation. The applicants are very, very well versed, 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 guess the question is, is that is OK for us to do? for us to review findings even when an item is in violation? Or do they have to truly take it down, like what the code enforcement say, and then we can make the findings?

Well, that's, I guess, part of the consideration for making the findings because the ordinance is there. It's a requirement. And so 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 or the use. So it doesn't that process itself is not prohibited under the code. And so 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 how 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 the ordinance after being told multiple times, for example. I can rent this place right now for tonight for $500 for one night.

Right, and I would say if that's the thought, then again, the commission should express why it is that 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 Inn ordinance, and so there's the two additional findings on this page about the CUP, which ties into the Bed and Breakfast ordinance.

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

I will say that 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 noncompliant 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 say that the Planning Commission has approved this permit with these conditions of approval and then review those and say, okay, well, 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 CUP that runs with the land. And I think it hopes to avoid the issue of If there is no CUP, 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 a short-term rental without a permit? When you get a warning, you get told that you should do the same.

What actually happens? Do you get fined? Right, and usually there's a notice violation from code enforcement, and I think the code, the general code enforcement structure authorizes the city to either file a complaint or impose fines. I think the fines have a set amount, I think it's $100 per violation, but it's depending on what the city is taking in each instance. And so if, for example, there's multiple violations, then the penalties, the city 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 CUP?

Right. Yes. Well, the process is so that the CUP can be reviewed, reconsidered, and can be revoked. Right. So the CUP can be revoked if there's violations of conditions and there is a condition now in the resolution for that to happen. It's number 17.

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 with those outstanding fees be for the prior three years of operating 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 Having the conditional use permit in place would be more advantageous because then we have a framework to work with. If there continues to be documented noncompliance, then 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 determine what further action there would be needed. I think the benefit of having that framework in place, plus the fact that most of the findings are met, could be a net positive 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 don't think so. The issue we have, I think, is that we have regulations. They're not perfect. But it falls to us, as the Planning Commission, to be discretionary about how we feel about this without a framework about CUP or Airbnb ordinance that's coming down the road at some point. And you know, it's, this is going to 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. I don't feel comfortable granting an approval tonight just based on what we have been shown and what we are still now seeing to Commissioner Count's point that 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 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. I think I find it hard 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 is not the end of the conversation and so whatever comes after this the airbnb or the short-term rental will still be there it's still going to 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. And so with respect to public health, safety, and welfare, the working relationship between the applicant and the neighbors is a very critical point to examine. And I was hoping that 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? And less so about, you know, while economic vitality is one of our priorities as a city, and it's good to have, 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 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 this permit would be one step in a long, longer process to to 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 the CUP would be good?

I think the CUP, so the two questions I have are, if we don't approve the CUP, then well, what's gonna change about the whole situation? I think the CoP does give us a little bit more teeth and it gives people that are aware that 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 modifications amendments in ways that will help the applicant of the CoP move forward in ways that are more

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 continue to operate illegally this short-term rental regardless of what whether there's a cup in place and therefore the only way that we can help control that is to offer a CUP, which then allows the short-term rental. Am I understanding that correctly?

I think that's my working assumption. 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 the operation of the Airbnb. It's still listed on the sites, apparently, and you're still able to book it. 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 permanent 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 They are that's kind of what I gathered or I gleaned and so the applicant has done tons of research and He now is he acknowledges the ordinance. He acknowledges that the enforcement that has come through. And it is, and so that's in one category. So 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 is I'm having a hard time making a finding when we're sitting here and yet there wasn't that the, 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 is i think the business plan is going in the right direction i think the conditions of approval are 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 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 business plan was put together to be in compliance with the findings that are required of us. To me, that's how 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 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 CUP, 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. But it feels like it would be a reward to provide a CUP at this point in time. And that's where I think my discomfort is as well. In terms of continuing to get income from this property, it is still legal to rent for more than 30 days. You can still hire a gardener. to keep up the lawn regardless of how long people are staying there. So there are things that can be done here. But if we don't, as a city, in fact, have enforcement for these short-term rentals, then I think we need to recommend that the city council look at that as well. Because are we just continuing to allow these short-term rentals to run illegally across the city with no repercussions for them doing so.

Just to clarify, so the city does, you are able, the city is able to enforce the code and say you're not, you're supposed to get a CUP, but you didn't, and so your short-term rental is not, you know, in compliance as it is here. So granting a CUP would give the property or the applicant that right to do it. So just a clarification.

But nothing was done, the city 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 there was multiple notices?

Well, I can't speak exactly to that, but I think there's some time differences when the application came in trying to get a CUP and the notices went out, and so there's that process. But the point I'm trying to make is just that the city still has the code enforcement mechanism, regardless of whether you have a CUP or not, but the CUP gives the additional right to operate.

My other question is because nobody, I don't think any of us want to deny something that is in substantial conformance or meets the findings 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's 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, the advertisement off, and then come back for reconsideration of the CUP? Yes.

Almost like a continued item.

I think that's more on the commission. I mean, how much time do you want to assess this?

Claire, could it be continued? Could this be continued to a date certain? Yes. Doesn't it take 24 hours to take something down?

What about the concept of denying the application right now and then having them reapply to the CUP? We can say, OK, 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 also an option. So the two options that we have are we can continue it to a date certain. Is it 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.

If I can have some clarity on the condition number 16 So this one is the one that says that 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 7 Is that a way to say that the applicant has to substantially comply with the conditions of approval within one year I

that is more um that may not be very applicable in this case but that is more for the applicant to pursue the use and so if they got a permit a cup but they don't do what they're asking the commission to allow them to do within one year then we would consider that okay lapse what if we so um maybe another option we could do is 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 complaint of 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 the permit would automatically lapse.

I'm sorry. You were talking about if the commission grants the CUP?

If we approve the CUP, yes, and then have that condition go in, it would be valid until a first instance of noncompliance.

So if the CUP is granted, in order to revoke it, you have to give the applicant an opportunity to be heard about the revocation, and so that's why it's a use that's granted for the site, right? And so it wouldn't... the condition wouldn't be able to say it's going to lapse because there is a complaint, but you have to kind of find the violation and then you have to give the permittee an opportunity to be heard about whether the permit will be revoked or not.

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 sending a message to the rest of the city that You don't have to comply with the things that we tell you are already the ordinance. You don't have to take it down. We're sending a message that I think is the wrong message. I think in order to 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 three months later. This is not OK. So 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. So with that, I would like to move that we deny this conditional use permit on the basis that item 2, the proposed use, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. We cannot find that item in compliance.

And I would just add, before there's a second on the motion, that if that's the decision of the Commission, I would, because you have articulated reasons why the Commission doesn't think the findings can be made, but I would suggest that we, because there aren't written findings in the record right now for a denial, that I would suggest that we bring back resolution at the next meeting and just for the Commission to confirm that the findings are you know consistent with what you've expressed in the meeting you know consistent with your decision that's just to affirm the basis of the decision and I think Commissioner Cowan it's to make the application once in compliance could we do that is that what the Commissioner Cowan could add no I'm not seeking to I think 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 this 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 going to bring a resolution back to affirm the basis for that decision as reflected in tonight's discussion thank you I second it and I think that's a great idea

Okay. Commissioner Count? Yes. Commissioner Moran? Yes. Commissioner Kwok? No.

No.

Chair Needing?

Yes.

Okay. Motion passes.

So it's 3-3-1-1. Okay, now moving on to item 3C, application number Y26017, location 1534 Locust Street for another CUP to extend alcohol hours. Does staff have a presentation? Oh, beautiful.

Good evening, commissioners. Summer Gill, senior planner with the city, and we are here tonight to consider the conditional use permit to extend the alcohol hours at Dariush Restaurant. That's located at 1534 Locust Street. And just to quickly orient you with the site, the restaurant is located within the Walnut Creek downtown area on Locust Street. It is 1,710 square feet in size, and there is a small 105 square foot outdoor dining area. And the surrounding area does consist of similar restaurant retail type uses. The site is on pedestrian retail, which does allow restaurant uses by right. And in order to serve alcohol, administrative use permit is required to serve alcohol till 11 p.m. And tonight the request is for a conditional use permit to sell alcohol past 11 p.m. And here is the current operations for the restaurant. The current operations were approved under a administrative use permit. The restaurant operates under a type 47 alcohol business license. And the hours of operation are 1130 a.m. to 11 p.m. seven days a week. Alcohol is served both in the outdoor and indoor dining area of the restaurant. And outdoor dining permit does limit the alcohol service to 11 p.m. And the security measures on-site include training and certification, the RBS training required for all employees that are serving alcohol, and a on-site manager is responsible to oversee the 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 the 30-minute last call reflects the 12.30 AM, which is the end time for the sales and service of the alcohol. However, the consumption will remain till 1 AM. And here are just some site photos and the floor plan to show you the restaurant space. And the area that I have highlighted blue on the floor plan essentially shows the seating area. And then there's a smaller outdoor seating area right in front of the restaurant. And the security camera locations are provided with that symbol. Let me see if I could use this. with the symbol so they do have cameras installed throughout the restaurant at the rear as well as along the front entrance and within the restaurant so tonight the planning commission in order to approve this project will need to make the standard conditional use permit findings that are listed before you the all of these findings have been addressed in the draft resolution that's included as attachment one of your packet tonight And the additional findings that the Planning Commission needs to consider are also listed here. And again, outlined in or addressed in full detail in the draft resolution, but I'm happy to go over any if needed. And this project is exempt from CEQA as the extension of alcohol hours does not expand the floor area and does not alter the overall restaurant use. So staff does recommend tonight that the Planning Commission determine the project is exempt from CEQA under class section 15301 and adopt the draft resolution attachment one approving the conditional use permit allowing alcohol sales and service for the restaurant till 1230 a.m. and consumption till 1 a.m. seven days a week. And that is all I have 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.

Just how does this timing match up with the surrounding restaurants nearby?

many of the surrounding restaurants and i believe it's um vanessa's bistro as well as is it the broderick's many of the ones on locust street do have extended alcohol hours that have been approved and walnut creek pd is also here tonight and they have confirmed that this restaurant since they've been operating under the administrative 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 going to open up the public hearing and that the applicant would like to come. You have 15 minutes.

Hello, everyone.

Sorry, we're good. Okay, thank you. Go ahead.

I'm happy to answer any question you have. Okay, got it, okay.

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

Yeah, it helps, obviously alcohol is kind of a nighttime, customers really like to enjoy their food with their drinks, you know, and my food is because of the kebabs and grills. It works very well with the liquor. We lose a lot of customers by 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 actually have a question only because when we've approved this, it has come up. It says, is live entertainment music dance areas proposed occasionally, not all the time?

Yeah, I mean, we don't turn our restaurant to a dance floor. You know, we just kind of when there is a birthday party that they want to have like a solo music or a DJ for the specific night. Yeah, that's what it means. Okay.

Okay. Yeah, I asked that just because the last time this came that way there was a whole thing about dancing and Before 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, you don't have to come back up here, but you do have the opportunity. So 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 I would like to go ahead and make the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit Application Y26-017 as presented.

I'll second.

Thank you. Commissioner Count?

Yes.

Commissioner Kwok? Yes. Commissioner Moran? Yes. And Chair Needing?

Yes.

Thank you. Motion passes.

Thank you for your patience. OK, so now I'd like to move on to item number five, which is commission considerations. Anything from staff? no nothing from staff okay then i think we can adjourn thank you so much

Thank you.