In the interest of everybody's time, it is 6 30.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Lisa Bickford.

I'm the vice chair of the Planning Commission.

Welcome to the Planning Commission meeting for this evening.

Please remember to turn off your cell phones.

Commissioner Cantra.

And the parking validation machine is for the garage under City Hall is located near the entrance.

We still don't have a flag in this room, so we are gonna pass on that.

I'd like to do roll call.

Commissioner Barrosio.

Commissioner Bandal.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Commissioner Cow?

Here.

Commissioner Casey.

Here.

Commissioner Escobar.

Here.

Commissioner DeWyn is not here.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Here.

Commissioner Young is not here.

Commissioner Chair Rosario is not here.

Myself, Vice Chair Bickford, I am here.

Thank you very much.

I'm gonna read to you the summary of hearing procedures.

If you want to address the commission, please fill out a speaker card located on the table at the back.

And deposit the completed card up here somewhere.

And we will take it.

There are also speaker cards.

Well, there are only speaker cards back there.

Sorry.

The procedure for this hearing is as follows.

After staff's presentation, applicants andor appellants may make up to a five-minute presentation.

During the public comment period, the chair will call out names on the submitted speaker cards and the order received for those members of the public who attend in person.

As your name is called, line up in the front with the microphone.

Generally, each speaker will be given up to two minutes for public testimony, and speakers using a translator will have up to four minutes.

At the discretion of the chair, the time allotted for each speaker may be changed depending on the number of items on the agenda, number of speakers, and other factors.

Speakers using a translator will have doubled the time allotted.

After the public testimony, the applicant andor appellant may make closing remarks for up to an additional five minutes.

Planning commissioners may ask questions of the speakers.

Response to commissioner questions will not reduce the speaker's time allowance.

The public hearing will then be closed, and the planning commission will take action on the item.

The planning commission may request staff to respond to the public testimony, ask staff questions, and discuss the item.

If you challenge these land use decisions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at this public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing.

The planning commission's actions on rezonings, prezonings, general plan amendments, and code amendments is only advisory to the city council.

The city council will hold public hearings on these items.

Section 20.120.400 of the municipal code provides the procedures for legal protests to the city council on rezonings and prezonings.

The planning commission's actions on conditional use permits is appealable to the city council in accordance with section 20.100.220 of the municipal code.

Agendas and all staff reports for this meeting can be accessed on the city's website.

Before we begin, I want to remind the planning commission members and members of the public to follow a code of conduct at meetings.

This includes commenting on the specific agenda item only and addressing the full body.

Public speakers will not engage in a conversation with the commissioners or staff.

All members of the planning commission staff and the public are expected to refrain from abusive language.

Repeated failure to comply with the code of conduct, which will disturb, disrupt, or impede the orderly conduct of this meeting, may result in removal from the meeting.

This meeting of the planning commission will now come to order.

And I will move to uh section two public comment.

Public comments to the planning commission are non agendized on non agendized items.

Please fill out a speaker card and give it to the technician.

Each member of the public may address the commission for up to two minutes.

The commission cannot take any formal action without the item being properly noticed and placed on an agenda.

In response to public comment, the planning commission is limited to the following options.

Responding to statements made or questions posed by members of the public, requesting staff to report back on a matter at a subsequent meeting.

Directing staff to place the item on a future agenda.

Staff, do we have any speakers for public comments?

Don't see any.

We're going to go to section three deferrals and removals from the calendar.

Any items scheduled for hearing this evening for which deferral is being requested will be taken out of order to be heard first on the matter of deferral or removal.

Staff will provide any update on the items for which deferral and removal is being requested.

If you want to change any of the deferral dates recommended or speak to the question of deferring or removing these or any other items, you should say so at this time.

Do we have any?

No.

Okay.

So item four uh is the consent calendar.

Um there will be no separate discussion of individual consent calendar items as they're considered to be routine and will be adopted by one motion.

If a member of the commission requests debate, separate vote or recusal on a particular item, that item may be removed from the consent calendar by the chair and considered separately.

The public may comment on the entire consent calendar and any items removed from the consent calendar by the chair.

Yes.

Okay, so we've had a request to remove uh the uh particular agenda item from the consent calendar.

And we were gonna get the presentation anyway, right?

Yes, um, so we're removing from the consent calendar, so we will move it uh into our uh regular um session.

Um, so but I think there's still are there notes on for the consent calendar?

Minutes, yes.

Yes, okay.

Motion to approve the minutes.

Uh so we have a motion from Commissioner Oliverio and a second from Commissioner Bandal.

Um, go through.

Uh Commissioner Barroso.

Yes.

Commissioner Bandal?

Yes.

Commissioner Cantrell.

Yes.

Commissioner Cow?

Yes.

Commissioner Casey.

Yes.

Commissioner Escobar.

Yes.

Commissioner Oliverio.

Yes.

And myself, yes.

Uh Commissioner Rosario, Commissioner Wynn, and Commissioner Young are absent.

Uh, so that carries.

Um, I think at this point we will move to our presentation.

Give me just one sec.

Um so we'll move to the public hearing portion.

Uh generally the public hearing items are considered by the planning commission in the order in which they appear on the agenda.

Uh we only have one agenda item, so I'll call it out in a minute.

Please be advised that the commission may take items out of order to facilitate the agenda, such as to accommodate significant public testimony or may defer discussion of items to later agendas.

The item for uh discussion today is PP 25-007, an ordinance of the City of San Jose amending Title 20.

Um, and I'm not gonna read all of the rest because we're gonna have a presentation on it.

Staff.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Start the presentation moment.

And if whoever is speaking could bring the mic forward so it's the audio is clear for the recording.

Thank you.

Okay, can you hear me?

Okay.

Good evening, commissioners.

My name is Brent Carvalho, and I am joined by my colleague and co-project manager uh Rena Ong, as well as supervising planner Aparna Ancola.

I will provide a brief overview of agenda item 5B, file number PP 25-007, state law maintenance update.

Uh also just wanted to note that to date we have not received any public comments on this proposed ordinance.

There are four recent state laws that are effective as of January 2026 and are addressed as part of this ordinance update.

First, we have Assembly Bill 1061, which further expands SB9 provisions to allow subdivisions on historic properties within the R1 single-family zoning district.

SB9 effective since January 2022 allows subdivisions of single-family zone properties and previously excluded properties in historic districts from these provisions.

Next, we have assembly bill 752, which makes child daycare centers a permitted use if they are co-located as part of a multifamily housing development.

And then we have assembly bill 1154 and Senate Bill 543, which include changes to existing state law for junior accessory dwelling units, commonly referred to as JADUs.

In addition to implementing recent state laws, this ordinance update includes the city's housing element action item P-41 to remove subjective language references for planning permit findings and to replace them with objective standards.

Additionally, there are some minor changes to improve clarity and correct past errors, which are included as part of this update.

So we'll go ahead and start with AB 1061.

Assembly Bill 1061 is a recent bill that addresses duplexes and subdivisions on historic properties and further expands on SB9, which was approved in January 2022.

The state law allowed property owners to build duplexes and to subdivide their properties if they were zoned for R1 single family zoning districts.

Previously, SB9 excluded all properties located in historic districts from ministerial approvals for duplexes or subdivisions, also referred to as urban lot splits.

However, the recent state law modifies that exemption.

Now, instead of prohibiting ministerial approval for duplexes across historic districts, the exemption has been narrowed to only apply to properties which have a historic designation, such as historic landmark.

Similarly, with regards to subdivisions or urban lot splits, the previous regulations prohibited subdivisions in historic districts.

Now the restriction has been narrowed to only prohibit subdivisions on properties designated as historic landmarks and to prohibit lot splits which require demolition or alteration of contributing structures in historic districts or any existing exterior structural wall or structure located within a historic district.

To help understand how many properties this might affect here in San Jose, there are about 2,014 sites in the R1 zoning district that have a historic resource status.

This amounts to roughly 0.01% of the total number of properties zoned for single-family homes within the city limits.

To address this update, we will make some revisions to part 9.5 of chapter 20.30, which is the residential zoning district chapter.

And now we'll talk about assembly bill 752.

This is targeted specifically to make daycare centers a permitted use when they are co-located within a multifamily housing development.

Additionally, this state law prohibits local governments from applying different development standards for the daycare center than those standards that would apply to the multifamily housing development.

Our current local zoning regulations would typically require a discretionary special use permit, which includes public hearing and community meeting as part of the approval process, resulting in higher costs and extended timelines to process the approval.

To address this update, we will add a new use called child daycare, co-located with multifamily housing development to the use tables for a variety of zoning districts which permit multifamily housing development.

These include the multifamily district in the residential zone, commercial pedestrian, commercial neighborhood, commercial general in the commercial zones, urban village, mixed use commercial, mixed-use neighborhood, urban residential transit residential in the urban village and mixed use zones, and DC and DC NT1 in the downtown zones, and MSG and MSC in the pedestrian oriented zones.

These are fairly small changes.

However, because the use tables are large, this update makes us makes up a significant portion of the ordinance.

There are two significant changes in this update.

The first is related to owner occupancy, and the second is related to the minimum length of time for rentals.

Previous JADU law required owner occupancy.

However, the new state law includes changes to the owner occupancy requirement.

Now, if the JADU has its own separate bathroom facilities, not shared by the rest of the house, the owner of the property does not need to live on site.

If the bathroom facilities for the JADU are shared with the primary unit, then the owner of the property is required to live on site.

The only exception to this requirement is if the property is owned by a government agency, land trust, or housing organization.

AB 1154 also updated the minimum length of time that a JADU can be rented.

Previously, there was no prohibition on short-term rentals.

However, under the new state law, the rental of a JADU must be for a minimum of 30 days or more.

Effectively, this update means that J ADUs cannot be used as short-term rentals or vacation properties.

Next, I'll explain the update related to the city's housing elements strategy P-4-1, which is to review and revise subjective language used in standard permit findings, including site development permits, conditional use permits, special use permits, or planned development permits.

This update is aimed at revising subjective standards in order to replace them with objective standards.

The proposed amendments aim to improve transparency and predictability in the development review process by establishing measurable criteria for evaluating housing projects.

Additionally, this update includes minor maintenance and cleanup to improve clarity or correct previous errors within the code.

This includes two notable updates, removal of the word overlay in chapter 20.70, which is the downtown zoning district chapter.

And then a minor update related to ADU condominium requirements in section 20.80.185 of chapter 20.80 to add a reference to the California Office of Real Estate.

All other text-space updates are aimed at improving clarity and ensuring conformance with state law.

So this ordinance will be discussed during three public hearings.

We're here today, May 6th at Planning Commission.

The airport land use commission meeting is scheduled for May 27th, and the City Council hearing is scheduled for June.

This concludes staff's presentation, and staff is available if you have any comments or questions.

Okay, Janet.

On uh AB 1061, so example, uh Palm Haven, uh Eichlers that have historic designation by the city, as well as uh Nigley Park, uh exempt or not exempt, or does it depend on that house is really 120 years old?

Thank you, Commissioner.

I would like to clarify that um the state historic resources inventory uh does not actually clarify which properties are on it, and at this time uh we do identify the national register, the um the state California register, the historic landmarks San Jose, all of these items as requiring a discretionary approval, a discretionary permit approval.

So that would be a single family house permit for the national and the California register properties, and for the city landmark, we do require a historic preservation.

Uh so then uh meaning it'll go to director's hearing?

You said discretionary.

So I mean, is that not ministerial, but the single family house permit can be it it is going to be um an administrative approval.

And then staff will uh contemplate the true historic nature of the unit, but there will never be a public hearing for it.

There would not be a public hearing.

Okay, and then and staff's gonna rely on all the criteria you mentioned, but objective standards, yes.

And then and then is your viewpoint that if it meets uh one or more than one of those qualifications and it's denied.

So because if it's an administrative process, um, there would be no appeal to that process.

Um I would look to the attorneys if they have any other.

So then I I think hearing what you're saying is then uh there is no protection for historically designated house.

Um because based on the R1 single family criteria that is available in AB 1061, yes, we cannot prohibit any changes except that they cannot demolish the 25%, and there are again strict guidelines as to what they could achieve on that property.

Got it, and then just so help me, so they would need uh, and maybe I missed it, uh you said uh keeping 25% of the extra structure, so is this keeping the facade and then tearing out the back?

That is correct.

And then but on a subdivided SB9 lot, how would that work?

So they would pretty much not touch the property because they are required to adhere to the SB9 setbacks.

So there would be no demolition or alteration of that existing residence.

So any remainder parcel um in the back would be converted to a um to a SB9 subdivision.

So really the subdividing is not seen from the street.

That is correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cantra.

Can we unpack the um the changes that are related to subjective and objective?

Um review.

What are we talking about?

What specifically is changed?

So the object to design standards uh would be specific as related to the setbacks.

They have to adhere to the setbacks and the height requirements.

We cannot use language as to that it has to match or um without giving the exact criteria.

We cannot use massing or just comparison between like the materials.

Um, so that would be the objective criteria, as in the setbacks, the height, and um we are requiring that they would match the overall appearance, but not the massing and the specifics of that.

So in practice, can we be specific what that might mean in real life?

What what is allowed?

What is it?

So at this point, we have to provide a four-foot minimum setback if we were to subdivide the property.

So the rear setback of that existing residence is not going to be tampered with.

So that is a minimum setback.

It has to be smaller and it has to be to the rear of the property, so that the primary dwelling in the front is going to be of a larger dimension than the unit in the back.

So the unit in the back is essentially more of a secondary in nature.

So that is the only objective standards that we can apply.

So okay, maybe I'm not answering, asking the right question.

I'm actually talking about the are you talking about ADU specifically right now?

So ADUs do have the state law exemption.

So ADUs are not part of any of the considerations.

But for the second unit, they can be they'll have to be smaller, they'll have to be to the back of the primary residence in front.

Commissioner controller, are you asking about the use permits?

Yeah, actually, yeah, I'm not talking about the specific ADUs.

I'm talking about the the general changes.

Yeah, for use permits and how they pertain to residential uses.

Maybe staff can answer that question as well.

So the specific um use permits for um HP permits, is that the uh ordinance change that removes subjective discretionary standards for use permits?

That's correct.

Um conditional use permits, special use permits.

That's correct.

And only objective standards would be applied if you staff can expand.

Yes, that's correct.

Um so we are referring to the P41.

And um I did um go into the AB 1061 earlier, but yes, the P41, which is the historic, which is the housing element compliance.

So what we are trying to do is um identify all of those that language which we had in the code earlier, which is considered as subjective, and then we are only requiring that the permits adhere to the health and safety standards to building and fire regulations, and we are not using terms such as it shall be harmonious and such terms.

So that that is the part that we have.

So it you have to be it is specific and not that's correct.

Um, like you said, harmonious, whatever that might mean.

Yeah, it seems hard to enforce any of that.

That is not what is that is not what it is.

Okay, there used to be conditions such as uh harmonious aesthetically pleasing, you know, matches the general character of the neighborhood, things like that, those kinds of discretionary language were removed from this ordinance.

Okay, for residential only, um the discretionary uh standards can still apply to non-residential projects.

Okay, so things like set the setbacks, the standards for um general design that are enforceable will continue.

Yes, absolutely.

But we can't use grassy language to say what you want it to look like.

Yes.

Okay, that's correct.

All right.

Commissioner Bandel.

Thank you thank you, and thank you for the presentation.

Um why does this go to the airport next?

Because this is a zoning code change, and these projects are referred to the airport land use commission.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, just generally speaking, if there's any uh land use changes that are within the airport's uh area of influence, then the airport land use commission has to approve those changes uh before they can come into effect.

Makes sense generally speaking.

So has land masks reviewed the changes to the the historic communities or anything?

Um yes, they're going to review that entire audit.

Oh, so they will get a review, yes.

Okay.

Is that review planned somewhere between now and June 2nd?

Um yes, we would typically receive a determination from AUC around May 20th, a week before the actual meeting.

I think they're asking about the Historic Landmarks commission.

Yes.

If that commission will review this ordinance and provide comments so the historic landmark commission is not um part of this review cycle because the current ordinance is just adhering to the um to the state law compliance.

We don't have choice, yeah.

It is mandatory compliance.

Okay.

Anybody else?

Yeah, as the weather keeps changing in Sacramento and there's no assembly bills and Senate bills coming out.

Um I think it's important to align.

Uh so this is work that's required.

So thank you for your guys' effort.

So the the change in the language.

Um, what drove that?

The change in the um types of requirements we could set, you know, using standard language and standard.

The inability to enforce subjective.

So is that what it is?

The ability to enforce it or yeah, I um I can speak to that because it was part of the housing element six-cycle process, and I was one of the staff persons working on that.

Um, the our HCD reviewer looked at what we usually do, how we approve projects or they're called findings, and um I think across the board they were suggesting to many jurisdictions you can't use stuff like aesthetically harmonious, you know, subjective language because beauty and I have the beholder or whatever, right?

I can have a difference of opinion that someone else, and it's it's really in line with um SB 330, the Housing Accountability Act, like how we review these projects has to be objective and measurable, and how do you measure harmony or aesthetics, right?

There's no sort of bar standard there.

I agree.

I think we've been using character of the community to stop a lot of things that are.

Okay, cool.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bros.

Did you have something?

Yes, thank you.

Um I don't know if we can move the slides.

Can we go to slide four?

Awesome, thank you.

As that's being pulled up, can someone give the current scenario?

Like what's a real real world real world example of current productive, and if all goes through how would the daycare industry or in San Jose change because of assembly bill 752?

Thank you, Commissioner.

Um so the daycare centers currently require a special use permit for approval, and that is a discretionary permit.

The current state law requires that we eliminate all restrictions to permitting process licensing, and therefore we are going to be using we're going to be including this as a permitted use in the current tables if you are co-located with the multifamily housing.

In 2020, the SB 234 already revised the housing of the daycare requirements from a small daycare to a large daycare.

Um that became an incidental residential use, if you will, and what we have today is just an extension of that family, larger family daycare to a daycare center.

However, all of these are regulated by the California Department of Social Service.

They do require licensing and operational requirements, and which are very stringent, and at this point they have requirements such as minimum space required per child, indoor and outdoor, like 35 square feet, and if it's outside, it's 75 square feet, and they would have to comply to those standards.

So it's not that we have absolutely no standards to uh enforce, it will be enforced by the licensing agency itself.

And um, there's also a requirement about the ratio of the number of credits to the person who's going to be monitoring them for all the age age groups.

So there are two components.

One is the family daycare that stays intact.

There is no change to that, but the daycare center is now folded in as an incidental residential use.

So the only change that we have today is that it would be permitted as part of the multifamily housing development.

There is not going to be any additional development standards, such as like height restrictions, that we wouldn't apply to the base multifamily zoning district.

So we would not impose any additional requirements except what we have already have, and the remainder requirements are going to be imposed by the licensing itself.

Okay.

So is the current practice a daycare center wants to enter a commercial area, or is this for things to be more aligned if they want to go into a residential area?

So this particular state law only enforces for a multifamily if it is co-located within.

This was identified as an urgent need for multifamily so that they have access to a daycare facility at source, if you will, where the families live, and therefore it is limited to the multifamily development itself, and in addition to that, to any community centers or libraries.

We already allow in as an incidental use for a place of an assembly use right now, and this would be the second use that we would allow based on the state law requirement.

Okay.

And can you explain what constitutes a multi multifamily housing?

So the state defines all these terms and um co-located would be within the premises or within the building itself, and the multifamily building, we are have required to have a density of five units or more, so that is the requirement right now, okay.

So we're talking about an area or a unit or apartment, I'm just trying to wrap my head around it.

So are we talking about that there used to be a lot of red tape for for a daycare center to go into like more of an apartment?

An apartment economy complex.

Anything that's multifamily.

Okay.

So some of the outreach that we did we heard that it needs to sort of be from the beginning of the development process for the housing and development for in order for a lot of daycares to be successful based on a lot of things like the plumbing that's required, the outdoor space that's required.

So it really needs to be involved from the beginning of the design process.

And so by making it permitted, it takes away the special use permit process that would have lengthened the process potentially, and it allows it to be more successful.

It's probably unlikely that we'll see these daycare centers moving into existing buildings because of how many modifications they'll actually need to make to the structure in order to meet state laws.

So hopefully, maybe that helps kind of some of the framework.

I would also like to add that at this time any apartment or a residential facility can have up to eight kids.

They can run a small daycare from home, and they could also run a slightly larger daycare, which is between eight and 14 kids.

So this is a by-right use at this point.

So what this state law does is within, let's say an apartment complex, they might convert one of the units to a daycare center, and um, and they would have to comply with all of the requirements for licensing for the daycare center.

Okay, if If that can just make sense, thank you.

Yeah, council member, I was gonna say it's more of future projects, allowing them so that they can skip a special use permit, and I will give two examples.

We actually have one at Tainian Station, it's an affordable housing development with um roughly like 3,000 square feet of daycare uses.

That was a ministerial project, so they actually avoided the the whole site development permit and the hearing process.

And then there was another one entitled, I think under construction off West San Carlos, same thing, multifamily, and then um a daycare center on the ground floor.

So they're not necessarily knocking down the doors because again, to Brent's point, you need to have that sort of um idea for uh a daycare center, I think right at the beginning when you're developing your new project.

It's also to eliminate uh a local city or town uh opposing a project because of the daycare center, right?

This would seem to be like a some cities that aren't necessarily cooperative would use the daycare center as an excuse not to approve the project, but with this, it wouldn't wouldn't have a problem.

I can see that for other cities, yeah.

Not us.

I mean, that's what I'm saying.

Yeah, so it would be that discretionary permit the special use, yeah.

So other cities like Anaham, they have already used a process very similar to what we are proposing to implement.

And um, and I do think that with this um particular bill, I mean, it just makes it a lot easier for families to access the daycare where they live.

Commissioner Kell.

Sorry.

Thank you.

No, I just wanted to thank Ruth then.

Um, and uh I don't see your name tags up there, but the staff for your uh uh clarity.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cal.

Yeah, I want to thank Commissioner Barrosio for bringing this up as a dad of a nine month old right now.

Um, daycare is definitely something I'm thinking about.

And I wanted to dig in just for one moment, the idea of an existing apartment complex.

So I actually live in an apartment complex, so would AB 752 then apply to existing apartment complexes because I was listening to the way you responded to the questions, and it sounds like it's more for new development, but how would this apply to existing developments or existing projects like mine?

So I think with the um newer buildings and facilities, I think you would have more of an opportunity to include and to also conform to the regulations set by the state and and also the CDSS licensing, but if it is an existing, uh then you would be you would be able to do a small and large daycare at any time, um in any apartment can do it right now, but if you were to do a daycare center, then you would have to comply with all of those um restrictions which are imposed.

Yeah, okay.

But you could do it, yes.

Understood.

Thank you so much for clarifying.

I have a lot more homework to do on this front then.

Any further questions from the commission?

Okay, I was gonna say motion to approve second uh apologies, Chair.

We do need to have some public comment on this.

Oh, yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, I don't have any public comment cards.

Is there any public comment in the room this evening?

Thank you.

I bypassed that because I didn't have any cards.

Sorry.

Okay, well, thank you for attending members of the public.

I have a motion from Commissioner Young, uh Commissioner Casey, and a second from who was the second from.

Oh, sorry.

Commissioner Oliverio seconded.

I'm just gonna read this just to make sure staff recommends that the planning commission recommend that the city council take all of the following actions.

Consider adopting the determination of consistency to the envision San Jose 2040 general plan final program environmental impact report, resolution number 76041, supplemental environmental impact report, resolution seven seven six one seven, and supplemental environmental impact report 2023 to 2031 housing element update resolution 2023-262 and addendary there too in accordance with the California environmental quality act as amended and an ordinance of the city of San Jose amending title 20 of the San Jose municipal code to amend all of those various parts I'm not going to read them all I don't think anybody wants to hear me talk that much so we have a motion and a second and let's go ahead and do vote.

Commissioner Barrosio Commissioner Bandal yes Commissioner Cantrell yes Commissioner Cap yes Commissioner Casey yes commissioner Escobar yes Commissioner Wynne is not here commissioner Oliver yes Commissioner Young is not here Chair Rosario is not here and I am a yes that passes thank you very much and we're gonna move to section seven don't confuse me referrals from city council boards commissions and other agencies any referrals no referrals good in the welfare section eight do we have a report from city council yes thank you we um so just a few updates uh April 28th City Council um heard the site development permit and besting tentative map at uh Camden Avenue and single tree way uh this was for 108 residential units um 32 three story buildings that came to planning commission I believe a week or two before that um the city council voted to approve that item and then yesterday May 5th there was an amendment to an agreement with clear channel outdoor for large format digital signage on city owned property located at Mayberry and West Mission Street and City Council approved that as well.

In terms of uh future updates on council May 19th the city council will hear um the sequel streamlining items I believe this has already come to planning commission the standard uh environmental conditions and handbook and then um I'll just jump into commission calendar and study session so there is a general plan for year review task force meeting May 20th on missing middle and then uh the week after May 27th uh there is no regular meeting but there will be a study session at five on the 2026 general plan annual report and it'll be here in the wings that's it thank you I have a question I saw that um in the notes to the commissioners the seven top golf um came back through and it is going it's an SB 35 now bypassing the commission can you say anything more about that do you know?

Which one seven top golf drive Alvisa in Alvisa yeah anybody know it's not one that uh I have information on currently and I I don't know that we can it it came to us um two three months ago and we just got an email to the commissioners uh saying that um it or maybe it was only directed to me because I care about this project particularly but um saying that it will bypass the planning commission uh because it is an SB 35 and 100% affordable um if that is the case I think I have heard that it was an it was converted to an SB 35 application but I can confirm and I'll follow up with the with the commission.

Thank you.

What time is the session on this five uh five 5 p.m 5 to 60 is the same 20th is the same yes and anything else for the public record no sorry, the twenty-seventh meeting is canceled up for a seven or whatever.

Study session, yes, on the general plan, annual report thank you sorry, the meeting on the 20th is at six thirty.

Oh, it is that's the uh 40th task force yeah, he was asking about the 27th 2020 oh I'm sorry.

No, that's okay.

He asked about the 27th 27th is 27th is five the twenty-seventh.

The twentieth is six thirty.

Yeah.

Okay.

Sweet.

Everybody got it?

Got it now.

Okay.

Uh, this meeting of the planning commission is adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.

Second.