Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'd like to bring the meeting to order, please. Welcome to the meeting of the Goleta City Planning Commission for today. And would you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Now is the time for the public forum. At this time, the public shall have the opportunity to comment on any non-agenda item relevant to the jurisdiction of the city. Do we have any speakers for public forum?

OK. Thank you. Planning Manager Lisa Proce, do we have any amendments or adjustments to the agenda?

Thank you. We'll move into the administrative agenda, which is item A1. Would you please read it into the record?

OK. Do we have any discussion from planning commissioners? Do we have any public forum speakers on this item?

Thank you. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes, please, of June 22nd? I move the motion to approve the minutes.

There we go. I thought it was. I make a motion to approve the Planning Commission meeting minutes for June 22, 2026.

Do we have a second? I can second. Okay. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Okay, now we are going to go to the public hearing for this evening. And could you please read the item into the record, please?

Thank you. And first thing I'm going to ask is for ex parte disclosures. If we can just start maybe with you, Commissioner Fullerton. I have no ex parte.

Commissioner Maynard. I do have an ex parte communication. I spoke with the president of the Fairview Gardens Board on Friday, Jeff Green. I did not learn anything that was not a part of the public record or shared in the applicant letter that was just made public today. I also did do a site visit. I drove around the site and particularly tried to look at some of the areas that had come up in public comment.

Thank you. Commissioner Penniman. I've had none. And Commissioner Sirotkin? I have none. And I will report that I did do a site visit last week, and I met Ms. Stratton, who identified herself as the administrative or business manager. She showed me around, but I did not learn anything that's already in the public record. Thank you. Can we move right into the staff presentation, please?

Before we go to public comment, I'd like to point out that there is an handout from the applicant out at the front desk. It has Meraki Land Use Consulting on it. And it's from the applicant. And folks may want to take a look at this. And it's right out there along with the speaker slips and the agenda. OK. So now we will go to the applicant presentation. I'd like to read into the record that you have a total of 15 minutes to give a presentation and rebut or clarify anything after public comment. Please reserve time for the latter if you intend to respond to public comment. The Planning Commiss

You have a minute and 30 seconds left for rebuttal. And yes, so you may want to.

OK. We're going to start with Planning Commissioner questions for both the staff and the applicants. So if you could please let me know whether you'd like to ask a question. Commissioner Fullerton.

I have a question for the applicant. It's about just the overall, I guess, one of the questions that staff raised. Why was this submitted without a landscaping plan and a photometric plan?

And a follow-up question on the photo metrics. If you're going to be having events in the evening, I mean, that is going to require lighting. So I think, to me, without being able to see the effects of the lighting, it makes it really hard to Make a decision.

Okay. And then, sorry, just a couple more questions. In the presentation that was attached to the staff report, you had mentioned concerts. Can you explain that? what kind of concerts you would want to have and amplified sound.

And as far as the festivals, is there going to be alcohol on site? You know, that is a good question. It has not come up before. Okay. A few more questions. You didn't show anything about the parking plan.

But how would they know, if you have like five different parking locations and someone wants to come to the event, how would they know which lot to go to? How would they know which one is full and which one is not full at any time?

Okay, and then just one more question on the parking. If you lose these parking agreements, how would that work? Would it be conditional to then have lower attendance at these events?

parking in a different location that would be equivalent to what they were losing okay and then just one question for traffic I know the traffic studies don't I believe include weekends but a lot of these events are on the weekends we've seen this with multiple projects lately and especially if we have the case where you could potentially have hundreds of or 1,000 cars trying to come and park in different lots. I mean, that could be potentially affecting these neighborhoods as well. You have cars driving through a neighborhood, finding it full, going to another lot. I mean, just how do we real

OK. Also for the applicant, there's one studio unit in the farmhouse. Is that also deed restricted, or is that not restricted? And what's that intended to be used for?

That makes sense. Thank you. One more question was about the barn. It does seem a little large. I didn't understand by looking at the plans that there is a second floor. And what is that? Is there? And did I understand that right? And what's that second story used for?

Yeah, that's probably what makes it look so big. So mostly mezzanine storage.

Great, thank you. That's all I had for applicants.

Got a couple of questions for different audiences. So we'll jump around a little bit. Let me start with staff. With the stormwater planning that was done, to what extent have they looked at some of the potential flooding issues, particularly on the southeast corner where we've run in? There's been some record of challenges in the past.

And that designing and revising hasn't occurred yet?

And then while I've got you, there is a culvert that runs along there. Is that a creek escha or environmentally sensitive habitat area? Or is that kind of a man-made culvert? And can you help me understand what's going on on that east side there?

And on the trees, can you help us remind me how many trees will need to be removed and to what extent have we seen where those would get replanted and size of trees that would be replanted? I think this may go into the issues around having a landscape plan, but I wanted to get your guidance on that.

I guess this is maybe a broader question for staff. So Fairview Gardens, one of the things that I think is so amazing about it is how beautiful of an ecosystem it is and that it really focuses on organic, regenerative agriculture. So I'm trying to get my head around it not having an impact on the environment if there was some construction in this beautiful ecosystem that Fairview Gardens has built. So usually when we do infill projects or CEQA exemptions, it's based on a a piece of land that's just cement or just gravel. This feels quite different from that. But you also mentioned that it's no

And so, for example, where the farm worker housing is, that will be mostly replacing agricultural fields or sort of what's there right now?

Um, so I know we also have a special event permit process with the city Can you talk to us about when we should be putting events in a CUP versus when do we handle events through a special event permit and

That's helpful. Thank you. There was an earlier CUP process where the city was working with some existing housing and there was a CUP that required the applicant to move the housing at that time to the central development area. Can you help me understand what the impacts that the city had identified at the time were and why there was a condition to move it to the central area? And then I know now we're looking at kind of moving it back to that area. So I'm trying to understand what changed between those two processes.

Thank you. And there are some yurts on the site that are currently not approved, is that correct?

So they were allowed until permanent construction, so they're still technically allowed as a temporary use?

No, there are setbacks. There's some conversation about sound setbacks for smaller events that would be 20 feet from the property line. Is there any differentiation between sound setbacks for small versus large events?

The staff housing is so there's nine staff housing units, one in the central campus and eight in the farm worker housing. But there are eight units with 16 bedrooms. So it looks like we have one parking space for two bedrooms. Is that normal for farm worker housing?

And is that because it's farm worker housing? I know for like a normal residence, we normally require one and a half or two spaces for that same amount of space. So is it because it's farm worker housing that it's reduced?

And there's a cafe on site. I was looking at the parking requirements, and it was nine spaces for the farm stand and eight for the farm worker housing, 25 for the barn, and four for farm support. But I didn't see any parking assessed for the cafe space. Is that incorporated in the barn parking requirements?

And actually, I have another question for the applicant that won't require Scott, so I can ask you over there. I appreciate the letter that you provided that reduced your expectation for number of events and size of events. One thing I didn't notice in here was any change to the number of animals. And so I wanted to check in. I believe there's a maximum of 100 chickens and 26 small animals. But I also saw your enclosure for animals was only 2,000 square feet. So I guess my question is, are you really going to have that many? Or could that number also be reduced, in your opinion?

So what was the total parking spaces for the cafe then?

Oh, sorry. I had nine parking spaces for the farm stand and 25 for the barn. I was curious if that was consistent with your numbers, too.

Thank you. That's very helpful. You're welcome. That's all my questions for right now.

I have a number of questions for the applicant. But since you mentioned the housing, I'm going to do an add-on for that. I have a question. There are eight units that are for farm workers. And then there's one unit that was going to be market rate. Who is that for and why? What's the rationale behind that?

Right. And one of the things that was indicated in the application was that one area, I guess kind of in the northeast corner, that you were going to put in an orchard. do some, you know, trees. And I remember almonds was one of them. But those require more water, as I understand it. So I'm just curious as to have you really, you know, thought about that in terms of if certain kinds of trees require a lot more water than others.

It does. Thank you. Then one of the questions, and I noticed that some of the comments from the community brought it up, is about the animals and their location. And I'm just curious, because they are separate from the rest of the functional area of the farm, as is the farm stand. So there's a lot of construction in the middle and then two ends. why it was done that way instead of bringing everything together so that more of the land could be farmed.

It was very hard to read some of the slides. It looked like the animals and the manure area were on the south side now. Is that correct?

Yeah. Oh, OK. Because I wondered how close they were to individual housing units.

Okay, thank you. It was hard to envision that. And now this is a question for something that's close to my heart. Why was the after school program canceled? In your revised letter, why was that chosen as a cancellation?

have some responsibility for a little girl who wants to learn beekeeping. She can come to a class. Right. The other thing I wanted to, about the lights, and I think this might affect some of the evening, is there a point in time when the lights will be turned off? Event or no event, just, you know, at the end of the day.

And then I have just one more question. You know, I understand 95 dBA... is rock concert. What's 85? Can you provide an example of what that 10 different, the difference of 10 would do?

Yeah, I do have some. So I think these are more for staff. So Stowe House was mentioned, and that does have community events, like it's being proposed for Fairview Gardens. Are those, do they have a CUP or is that because they're Goleta, are they Goleta City property that it's a special use permit instead of a temp permit? Can you explain that?

So just thinking about Stillhouse, like Fiesta Ranchera or, you know, Music at the Ranch or Old Time, 4th of July, do those – Is there a conditional use permit that those are operating under?

Okay, and is that something that Is that because it's own Stowe house is owned by Goleta. That's a special event and not a temporary permit. Okay, so they wouldn't hit that what for For permit limit.

Okay Thank you, and then also I I guess there was an exemption for the after school program. And I don't know how possible or legal that is. Is that something that would be approved by the city council to change that, to waive those fees? And then also for the temp use permit limit, is that something that could also be feasibly waived by the city council?

Thank you. What else? I see the number 195 visitors in a couple places in the CUP, including condition 50, page 65, which seems to state that 195 attendees are allowed onsite without meeting the conditions like completed restrooms, onsite parking, trash enclosures, et cetera. Just wondering how the number 195 was reached for this condition. trying to get some insight into the think behind this number.

amplified music outdoors or open to the outdoors that you know of?

I think this might, oh, CEQA exemption. You know, to be exempted from CEQA requirement, it has to be under five acres, the development. And so this is 12 acres, but it's less than four, I think, is the actual development size, which makes it qualify for that CEQA exemption, as far as I understand. Are there precedents where this has been, like... used or exercised?

Yeah, anywhere in the state of California.

All right. Thank you. Yeah, that's the only one that kind of stood out as raised an eyebrow, but the staff feels pretty comfortable in the CEQA exemption meets all those criteria. That's correct, yes. Great. Thank you.

Were those all under five acres, though? Oh, yes. Yeah, so this is kind of weird because it's like it's more than five acres, but the development is, yeah. Just wanted to make sure I understood that right. And I think this is my last question, but in the general plan, land use 7.5, I believe the Fairview Gardens is protected as a heritage farmland. Two questions. One, do I understand that correctly? And two, if so, does changing the intensity of use for heritage farmland trigger a city council or voter decision?

Yeah, it was really hard to read it. And I know we voted on Measure G at some point, which basically says you can't change this farmland, this agricultural land, without the vote of the people. And I was just wondering how that triggers. Like, when would that trigger for Fairview Gardens? Would it be, we're going to put houses on it, that requires a vote of the people, or we're going to do, you know, large events, that is the trigger. I'm trying to understand that a little bit.

And since there's not a rezone here, that wouldn't be triggered?

You bet. That's clear. Thank you. No more questions.

A couple of quick follow-up questions. So as we were talking about the CEQA exemption where they were looking at the 3.4 acres or the 12.3 acres, to what extent does the events component play into that? So there's the construction piece, which is clearly less than the five acres, but then there's also the use of the land for events. But if we're looking at a COP application but they didn't have a construction piece, there wouldn't be a CEQA requirement. Is that correct?

There's two pieces of this, right? There's a construction project and several construction projects. And then there's also all of the events. And the events are really going to go throughout the 12.3 acres or the full area of the land. More than five acres would be impacted by events in different ways. But the construction is limited to under five acres. So I guess my question to you is, if this was a CUP only for events and we weren't looking at construction, it wouldn't require CEQA. Is that right?

There's field trips and after schools and workshops that I imagine are going to go throughout the farm space. So I guess that's the question maybe to Ms. Hanna-Park, if the scope of the events impacts the acreage or not, I guess is what I'm trying to understand.

Thank you. Those are really helpful. And then I have just two last quick questions for the applicant. So my first one is, you provided so many reductions here. I'm trying to get my head around the different reductions. So I don't know if you can come up with this number on the spot. How many events, given your new plan that you submitted right at the beginning of the meeting, would be over 195 attendees? Because I know you've got lots of different types of events of different sizes, but those seem to be the events that would reach out into the neighborhoods or have You know, work trying to get

Because it was four fundraising, two seasonal events.

How often would there be an event over 195 people?

Oh, and sorry, one last question. There was a public comment letter that had mentioned that maybe some of the bass sounds might not have been incorporated into the acoustic assessment. Could you speak more to that?

Not yet? I have a couple of questions, and then we're going to get to public comment. This is for the applicant. Because you have contracts for parking with your neighbors, two of who are churches, at least two, what about Sundays? Aren't they busy parking their own cars there on Sundays?

And then when you talked about in your new letter that you gave to us this evening for open house, clarify attendance max of 750 is a rolling attendance. And there is a max at any given time of 150. Well, an open house is an open house. You're supposed to come during these hours, noon to 5, open house. So how do you control that, that there's only 195 people or, excuse me, 150 people that show up? At any given time.

Yeah, and that sounds fine, except that, you know, most of these people that are coming to the open house are driving from somewhere. So they're parking their cars and then they're walking up the path to visit the open house and, you know, they can't get in and they're standing out. I don't know. It just seems like it. I appreciate the fact that you've that you're trying to think about 150 people at one time. But I think the. practicality of that with people coming and there being big traffic jams and groups of people bumping into each other and not knowing where to go to get out of the sun or

Okay. That's my only two questions. Anybody else? Quickly? No. No. Okay. So we are going to move on to public comment. I'd like to ask the clerk how many public comment people we have.

Okay. In that case, with the interest of time... We typically do public comment for three minutes, but due to the high number of speakers and in the interest of time, I'm going to limit the public comment to two minutes per person. Okay? So can we go ahead and start with the speaker slips, please?

Excuse me. We're going to take a 10-minute break. Okay. Before we go to the Zoom callers. Understood. Okay. Thank you. We're going to get started again. Thank you. Okay, could we go to the Zoom public commenters, please?

Thank you. Would the staff like to clarify anything on the record in light of the public comment?

Does the applicant want to clarify anything?

Let's try that again. Thank you, Chair. Does the applicant want to clarify anything on the record in light of the public comment? I think you have a minute and 30 seconds for your rebuttal.

Thank you. Do the planning commissioners have any additional questions to staff or the applicant? Commissioner Sirotkin.

First of all, I wanted to commend you on the flexibility and your willingness to work with the neighbors and, you know, to cut some of the events and the sizes and that sort of thing. And so I think this, you know, but I think you probably could do a little bit more. I, for many years, ran all kinds of events. And I looked at that list and I went, my God, I hope I'm never asked to do that. because you have, rather than saying up to a certain number of things, you've just kind of said we're going to have five of these and six of those, and I'm thinking, who is going to do that? I mean, I've wor

OK. Commissioner Penniman? No questions. OK. And I don't have any additional questions. So we are going to close the public comment portion of the hearing. And we will go into deliberations. So I think as chair, I'm going to ask each of the commissioners the five questions that the staff has put in their staff report. that they would like us to consider. And I think it will be very helpful for us as commissioners to go through these one by one and find out where each of us stands on each of the five questions. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to read the question, and then we will go one b

OK, thank you. I do think that we do need a landscape plan. I came from design review board, and I know landscape plan, photometric plan, those are some things that we would need. And because it's come to us now, you're asking us to make these findings. It's not a question of going back to DRB. It's with us today. So I know you are a farm. There's not going to be a huge amount of landscaping, but there were comments about trees, trees being removed. I know there's some landscaping that was specifically mentioned on the northern property line about maintaining that, but nothing else. So I feel

I came into the meeting thinking that I would say yes and ask for the landscape plan. And a couple of things actually helped me feel OK without it. There's only one or two trees that are being removed. I thought that there was going to be more trees that would need to be removed. And then I really wanted to see where those were going to get replanted. I also did a site visit and was impressed at the extent of shielding with the pomegranate bushes, particularly on that north side. But throughout the perimeter of the property, there's a lot of shielding already in place, and that helped to relie

Thank you. I have mixed feelings about it and kind of, you know, depending on how the rest of the committee commission feels, you know, I didn't really think or feel that landscape plan was necessary. But, you know, I could see where it would add to the final completeness of the project.

Yeah, I have the same thoughts as Commissioner Maynard. I think Mr. Onan said it well. We can trust the DRB to make these decisions. It would be nice to see where the screening is, the permanent screening, strategic things, not the planted fields. But again, I could trust the DRB. If it happens to come back for a continuance, I'd hope that that would happen before so we could actually take a look at it. But yeah, I could go either way on actually both of those two questions.

Yes, I would like to say that if it's going to come back to us for continuance, I think it's a good idea for us to review the landscape plan. As Commissioner Fullerton said, you're asking us to make the findings based upon what we hear tonight. And the landscape plan will help us with that assertion of what we need to do. So the second question is, should the applicant provide a photometric plan before the Planning Commission grants preliminary design approval in order to make the finding? And this time I'm going to start with Commissioner Penniman.

Yeah, it's the same for the previous question. I don't think it's a hard requirement for me.

And as I said, I'm kind of the same as Commissioner Penniman.

I was impressed with the limited amount of light that was planned by the applicant. So I guess I would like to see specifics in the proposal of where those light limits would be. I think we didn't get a lot of that in the proposal, which leads me to think we might need to see a photometric plan, but also that a better understanding of the lighting for events, particularly evening events, would be helpful for me.

Yeah, I agree. I think this is, for me, more important than the landscape plan, actually. I know that from what it said, there's not that much lighting, but it goes both ways. I'm concerned that the lighting could be too bright affecting the neighbors. We've had several cases come before us for just this reason, where the neighbors were impacted negatively because there were not plans done ahead of time. And the applicant had to go back and actually take out the lights and redo them, which we wouldn't want to see that happen. And also just the risk. You are talking about having evening events

I would not support this without a photometric plan tonight.

And I would say that, yes, I would definitely like to see a photometric plan before we decide. Okay.

Just a question for the staff. Would this be going to the DRB for approval, the photometric lighting plan and the landscape plan, even if we were to approve it tonight?

Yes, go ahead. This is a little off topic, but it's related to the planning documents. So in terms of acoustics, typically we do get like an acoustical plan that also shows that it's not going to go over 65 decibels at the property line. Do we have that information from other things that they've submitted to us?

And that meets that 65 decibels at the border? That's correct. Including for all the events? Correct. OK, thank you.

OK, we're going to go to the third question, which is, is the siting of the farm worker housing complex appropriate? Commissioner Fullerton.

I do want to say I think it's great that there is this affordable housing. totally support that. I could go either way on this siting. It's interesting how in the past the city required it to be in the middle of the project. But I know things have changed a lot in terms of housing in the last few years, especially a few years. So I could go either way on this. I think I want to see how other people feel.

I feel like this is actually a very appropriate spot for the farm worker housing. It provides confidentiality and some privacy to the farm workers, moving them away from the more public parts of the farm. So I think that that's a good choice. It does fit with the easements that are allowed with the property. It does split out a little bit of the traffic, so you have a very low amount of traffic for the eight cars coming in at the corner. I felt better knowing that that's really a culvert and is not an established creek base, because I was a little concerned about the road going across the cree

I would agree. I think it's, you know, it would be, I wouldn't want to live in the middle of where all the other activity is going on and certainly doesn't give them any privacy or security for their own residences. But it's very hard for me to look at those drawings and the buildings that I saw in the illustrations as high density because they are basically, it looks like it's four small buildings and all one story, so it's not looming over the neighborhood or the street or anybody's home. And so I think, and it's far enough away from the actual property line that I don't really think it's go

Yeah, as far as acceptable use, it's clearly called out in the general plan that farm worker housing is acceptable as far as the placement. This does sound like a I don't have any problems with it as well. I think Maynard said it as more eloquently than I could. But yeah, that's what the trust has set aside as an envelope for housing. And yeah, I think it is appropriate.

Yes, and I am totally in support of the farm worker housing and where it's sited. The next question is, are the number, size, and timing of programs and events appropriate for the site, or should there be a reduction in the number and size of events and or the hours scaled back for the outdoor events?

I think I turned it off. There we go. Well, as of a couple hours ago, I would say no. I appreciate the reduction in number, size, and timing. I think that I need a little time to digest it. Also, the public probably needs to digest it a bit. This is a public process, as you said, and I think having a little time for everyone to look at these numbers and see them in the conditional use permit language that we're approving. And also, whatever we can do as far as to the applicant to keep events down to that 195 visitors, if possible. How many of those could be limited? with that, I forget the ter

Once again, I'm agreeing with Commissioner Penniman, and I would suggest that you look and see how reasonable it is to actually, you know, host that many events that are listed here because I really think It could be cut back and expressed differently up to a certain number rather than holding yourself to having quite that many. I think it might be more realistic at least to start smaller and at some point be able to move up to something, but to be realistic with the staff and how many of these events could be handled realistically.

I am also very thankful for the letter that the applicant submitted right before the meeting, but am leaning towards a continuance because it is such a significant change right before the meeting that I do want the community to have a chance to look at these numbers and to think about this. But it's really clear that the applicant has done a significant amount of work to try to meet the community halfway through this proposal and that makes me feel really good about the direction that you all are heading. I also am thinking about that 195 number just because as we start to think about doing fi

Commissioner Fullerton. Yeah, I agree with Commissioner Maynard. I want to say first, I know it must be a little frustrating to not get past, but I think every single person that spoke here supports the farm. Everybody really likes the farm. And the programs, the educational programs, I mean, the arm-to-table dinners, it all sounds really awesome. And Honestly, right now, we can use all the local farms. We can get political locals going on in this country. There's people getting sick from food and they're saying, yeah, get local grown produce. That's safer. It's healthy. We all want that. I wa

Yes, and I agree with what everybody has said. And, yeah, I think you've done a great job, but I think you need to nail down some of those numbers a little bit more. It needs to be more concrete about what you're actually doing in reality and in practicality. So just keep that in mind. I'm glad that Commissioner Maynard brought up the animals. Frankly, I don't understand why you would want 26 goats and sheep. I mean, 100 chickens is a lot, but 26 goats and sheep? I don't know. I don't think so. I think that's a lot of goats and sheep. So anyway, think about that realistically as well, please.

I mean, obviously, yes. I think a formally revised project description would be really helpful.

I would also like to see that, and combined with a staff report that helps pull it together, I think we don't want to lump everything, but I do think there's some value in trying to understand sort of the total number of events, total number of events over 195, those types of Assessment is helpful, too, because I know I can get a little lost with the 15 different names of events. I'm like, OK, wait. So how often is it big? How often is it small? So I think trying to kind of group small events, medium events, large events is helpful in that description.

I actually agree that we should look for – we've identified a number of issues that we'd like to hear a little more information on, the lighting, the sound. I think about the only thing that we're not really looking for anything more on is the farm housing issue. But I think that I would like to see us get a little bit more information. But I don't want to have this drag on. I think it's a great plan, and I'd love to just see it fleshed out more and made real.

Yeah. Sam, I would like to see mostly the conditional use permit language adjusted with the new numbers to approve it.

Yes, and I agree with everything that's been said. We need to see a revised project description with all of those items. Do the commissioners have anything else they'd like to add to our deliberations?

I guess the question is, so is the next step, would we do a motion to continue?

Yes, yes, we will be doing that. I just wanted to check on any other comments or questions or anything before I close the public hearing. We have to close the public hearing before we do a motion.

You do have a question? No, a question or a comment. A comment. Go ahead. Go ahead.

So I just wanted to say to the applicant and the neighbors affected by this proposal, our job here at the Planning Commission is to rule on whether the project is consistent or not with the general plan. And looking at the general plan, it supports preserving Fairview Gardens. It's actually in multiple different sections through our general plan. land use element, conservation element, agriculture. And, you know, it's called out by name. It's an important resource to this community. It always has been. But, you know, when I saw the event sizes, I was taken aback. You know, it was ambitious and

There was a couple of other things that came up in our discussion that if we're continuing, I'd like staff to think about in terms of the conditions of the agreement. There was a question about if one of the parking MOUs goes away, so maybe a requirement that they notify the city if any MOU is discontinued for reassessment of parking availability. potentially having some sort of reporting system of number of people at events so if there was an estimate but they far surpassed the estimate that there'd be some communication with the city on that there was some inconsistency between some of the s

Sorry. I thought I was done. But the housing location, one point I did not bring up, and maybe it's for staff, is that Mr. Seves mentioned something about a bike path going through there. I don't know. There was no real close-ups on the gate and what that was going to look like for the housing. But making sure that there is a bike path going through there, especially if there is a city easement, would be great to see what that looks like. when this comes back, if it comes back. And then as far as the animals, I'm not so concerned about the animals coming from a more rural background. You know,

Just on the bike path, I think the only thing that I remember reading in the land trust letter was that there was some restrictions the land trust, I think, might have had about having open pedestrian or bikeways through the property. And I'm going off of memory from the hundreds of comment letters I read over the weekend, so I may not be accurate on that. But we should double check with the land trust guidelines there.

Oh, OK. Thank you. So is that what we want to do, to continue the hearing? Anybody not want to continue the hearing?

I make a motion to continue. Can I get a second? I'll second that motion.

Okay. Can we get a roll call vote, please?

Okay. We want the public hearing open or closed? Oh, no, we're keeping it open. I see. I'm sorry. I get it. Yes. I'm sorry. I take back what I said. We are not closing the public hearing. We are keeping the public hearing open. That's for the record. Thank you.

Well, just this. Okay. So we have to, I'm sorry, we have to continue our meeting, folks. So our next item on our agenda is planning director comments, but we'll ask if planning manager Lisa Prossy has any comments.

August 10th, yes, that's for the Anthem Church. OK. And we don't know when this will come back to us.

Excellent. Any final Planning Commission comments?

Just one question about the LCP amendment. So that's going to be our draft that will go back to the Planning Commission for hopefully final approval.

Yeah, so this is a draft incorporating all the comments that were made previously? OK. Just trying to understand the process, but you made it clear. Thank you.

Anything else? If not, can we get a motion to adjourn? I'll motion to adjourn.