I'm Christine Akama. I'd like to call the meeting to order and it is May 20. Can we have a row call? member Tegoffio, member Taf, member Middlement. Do we have any changes to the agenda nicely? There are no changes to the agenda. However, you have a number of desk items for the project at 176 Hard Cross. They primarily are generally supportive of the ASRBs. Sorry, the project revisions and I have some additional comments. Melanie will update with her presentation. Are there any public comments that are not associated with what's on the agenda today? That would be something off the agenda, not the Harcross already. And there's no one online, only online members the applicant and there's no one in the public for public communications Good So we're gonna start with the public hearing at this point. The agenda item is the address 176 heart cross lane. At this point, I would like to invite the staff to present the staff report. Melanie. Great. Thank you. Give me just a moment to share my screen. Okay. Great. Hello. And thank you. I'm Melanie Olson, associate planner. And I'll be presenting the continued project at 176 Harcross. That includes revision to town-improved fencing plans on a 32-acre site. The applicant submitted revisions to the fence plan after receiving recommendations from the ASRB on May 6th, 2024. After receiving the proposal, staff walked the perimeter of the site to confirm the existing locations of fencing and where there's no fencing. Staff also met with the resident via Zoom on Friday. The resident was from 470 Las Polgues Drive. She also submitted an email as a desk item. There adjacent to the property on the western side of the property, near Las Polgues Drive. She did not oppose the proposals since it had no fencing, adjacent to existing conservation easements, and Las Pogas Drive. However, she did have minor concerns regarding the 15-foot wide open staggered fence along Las Pogas Drive regarding long-term maintenance of that area. And if that area would create a tunnel effect for prey and predators over time. You also received three desk items today. They're all letters from Woodside Residents who do not oppose the revised project due to the consideration for wildlife and non-fence passageways near existing conservation easements. Two of them also discuss potential improvements to the fence review process for larger parcels in Woodside. As a reminder, the property is approximately 32 acres in the RR zone district. The property has one existing man residence, accessory structures, and a pool with existing fencing on the property. The property is slightly sloped, but overall relatively flat in the developed areas. It does have areas with slopes that are greater than 35% that includes the large drainage swale that goes across the property horizontally. It's also adjacent to Redwood City's Stolthas Park to the north, a 100-foot conservation easement to the west, and a 50-foot conservation easement and town-do property to this bottom corner here shown on the site, but there are no conservation easements on the property. At the May 6, 2021, 24 meeting, ASRB meeting, the applicant proposed vencing that's highlighted in yellow near nearly encompassing the entire 32 acre lot. Aside from the opening adjacent to the 100 foot conservation over here in the north and the northwest corner of the property and the staggered fencing opening down here near lost Polish drive. However, the locations of the existing fencing were not accurate. So the ASRV continued the item with recommendations to clarify the proposal. The application is currently proposing an updated revision to the town approved fence plans per the ASRB's recommendation, including better representing existing fencing and calling out wildlife passages. The applicant is maintaining perimeter fencing along most property lines, however, they're providing two large, non-fenced areas that are about 188 feet wide and 288 feet wide that are existing or that are adjacent to existing conservation easements. They also have maintained the 15 foot wide staggered fencing, adjacent to lost pulgous strive. All proposed fencing is visually open with welded wire mesh fencing with one foot clearance is at the bottom for a small to medium wildlife to use. The applicant and their team are here in person as well as online and they're available for questions. Staff is also available for questions that concludes my presentation. Thank you. The board have any questions for staff? Page two, we have to know the real decades. The idea and the more close, the internet and people wise that they are between the default and not-credits, but I think it's a bit... So, I think give you the permission. Yeah, sure. So when I put Intermin, I was taking into consideration the existing fencing. So only the proposed fencing has the one foot clearance at the bottom, but the existing fencing does not. So I just went throughout the property. It'll have those intermittent one-foot openings at the bottom, but only for the proposed fencing, not the existing. Yeah, great question. I'm just going to clarify. Once we approve a new fence plan, the previous approved plan is no longer approved. Or could they applicant fall back to the previous plan? This would be the staff would have to formally approve the fence permit itself. I mean, that would replace it. But with if the S R B recommends approval of this, then the town staff can go and approve the fence permit. And that would replace the old permit. On the entire west side then, a full length of it where it's new and or repair, there would not be anyone foot openings on the bottom there. Only where there is a highlighted yellow, so where the purple existing venting is, that's all existing. So that doesn't include the one foot clearances. Swing west is the left upper, the blue purple blue purple. Correct. Correct. So that whole link has no no pass through. It has the wildlife passage that's about 288 feet with no fencing. That's on the bottom of the plant. Not the stall staff side. It's they have two openings. So there's one that's a hundred and 88 feet towards the front of the property down here. And then there's another one. Oh, you're asking about the whole side. I see what you're saying. Okay. Yeah. There's no openings there near Stolf says park. Take the 90 going down the plan. There's none either until you get to the welded wire, which is the yellow. Correct. Correct. Yes. But there is a question. Okay, so the blue is essentially there. And in my understanding, some of those areas really don't have that. Would we be pretty in new facts? Where there would be a no. Well, sage and I walked the site and where they're saying there is fence to repair they're just like minor repairs like we saw a tree that fell through one that was like the most drastic example of repair fencing but other other than that, it just seemed minor maintenance. Nothing was fallen over. Correct. Correct. Colleges, if this is a repeat last meeting, the Stollsath Park have a fence of its own. It's a good question. You know, if the chain link fence is the parks fence or the owner's fence, the applicant might be able to answer that. And then with regards to the opening, the one area in which there would be a way to go under the chain link is it on on the park property, it goes over the ditch. And but it kind of spans the top of the ditch in which wildlife get under it through the ditch. But it's probably at least, it's a pretty deep ravine and it's wider than three feet. Are there no other questions from the board through the staff? If so, if not, I'd like to invite the applicant to make a presentation. Yeah, can you share this? Yeah. We need that. I'll see. Yeah, is this on the should be okay. Where about that? Hello, I'm Alex and I'm with Lee and raise engineering presenting tonight on behalf of the ownership of 176 Harcross. Thank you, staff and as are members for being here tonight. Thank you Melanie for the great re run on the last couple meetings we've had here. So hopefully we can come through some conclusions. In front of you is, as mentioned, the revised fencing purple being the existing fence that's to remain in kind with no changes. The cyan or light blue color is areas where there's minor repairs as mentioned by staff or that are just being repaired in kind. So, along Stolthes Park, as you were speaking, that will just be replaced in kind. So, along Stolthes Park as you are speaking, that will just be replaced for the chain link fence that is existing. There is no one foot opening on that. It is on average about a one six foot fence along that whole edge. As they mentioned, as the creek crosses that bottom west corner, just kind of pass where there's that dark square, it does cross back under to the park property and that's where that existing opening passageway work comes through. And then from there as we move right across the stage along the bottom you can see that there is no existing fencing until you reach kind of that light purple that comes kind of at the little crossing here. This all existing fencing will remain as is. The new proposed staggered fencing is proposed here at 6 feet high with a one foot opening with a 15 foot gap to provide a passage way between this property and the south. Along this edge, the fence is mostly to remain with some minor repairs as noted in the light blue color again. And as we move towards the eastern side of the property, you at the frontage here, there will be a complete opening with no proposed fencing until you get down closer to the entrance where we will have the new six foot welded wire fence with the one foot opening at the bottom. This side of the property here is bordered by single family residential here and the school. So those fences are all also to remain existing with some minor repairs. The school fencing here is all to remain as is. There's a proposed new section here that I believe some of the ASL remembers may have saw when they were walking. Currently, there's a temporary shielding for a black tarp that's put in place. That's going to be replaced with this new six foot welded wire fence and eventually just with some planting because it provides more screening essentially on this side. There is already the existing fence, so this will be placed in front of that just to provide some privacy from the school itself. Along the single family residentials on the back here, there's just a couple areas where you will see that there's some planting that's kind of pushed the fence down, so the whole goal is just to repair in kind. Here I just wanna highlight really quick where those open passageways are. So you can see in green we have one on the south along that 100-fint conservation event. Again here along the new proposed staggered fencing and at the frontage in these locations where there's no proposed fencing at all. Just as a quick reminder, this is again just a welded wire fence, six feet tall with a one foot gap across the bottom to allow passage for smaller wild life that can't reach over the top of the six one fence. Here is just a quick highlight of all the existing fencing. Again, most of this is just to remain in kind. A couple of the areas to note here just as some pictures you can see on the picture on the left. This is along the park property. The tree in the background has kind of pushed some of this down. So what we're looking to do is just kind of redo some of these posts. You can see this is leaning at quite an angle here. So it's more of a maintenance. There's some posts that just need to be reset and bring the fence back to its original. As staff mentioned, there's portions where some trees have fallen and branches have broken through parts of the top of the fence. So those would just be replaced in kind with the same chain link fence. As seen here, this little bit of maintenance. And so the property is just trying to upkeep that maintenance and continue it moving forward. On screen here, you'll see just a couple shots from existing fences all around at the top. We have the chain link along the school. That's in pretty good shape. That'll all remain as you get closer towards the middle here. This is where that proposed new fence will be. This on the left of this picture is that temporary tarp that's providing screening right now. That's just held up with poles and a wire. So that'll get removed and the new six foot fence with the wire mesh will be planted here. You can kind of see here some of the existing fences as we get towards the single family residential properties that were at the top of the screen where they have some wood and fences that are solid that run perpendicular to our property and we continue kind of that six fence chain link fence as we move along the property. At the bottom here, this is the fence that's connecting 176 hard cross, the 100 foot conservation easement. This is also just a welded wire around 6 foot high tall fence that continues along the south side of the property. And then we kind of get to the east side again over here where we have more of kind of that same existing fence and brings us back to the front. It's kind of hard to see here. This is an existing Bob Wire fence that runs about 200 feet along Harcross Road and then ends. It's open, it's passable throughout. It's about four feet high with about two foot gaps. And in the frontage here, we have about a 24 inch wood rail fence that will also remain with some minor repairs. I'm here for any questions, so let me know how we can help out. Thank you. Is the board having any questions in the up? Just the last picture said that the bar buyer will remain in traffic. Yeah, there's no proposed changes to the entrance. One question in the areas from the court or he's there existing fence that's being removed or just there was an existing fence when the topographic survey was completed. Since then, I think as may have mentioned last time the part of that fence along the hundredth. Confederation was pulled out. So that's, there's no proposed fencing to be replaced or repaired there and no new fencing and same with the frontage. There was some existing fencing, there was some existing polls that still remain, those will just be pulled out, but there's no proposed new fencing to attach to either conservation easement. So if I were to summarize another way, this proposal has a net of less fence than was there previous. Yes, since the time of the survey was completed, yes. And then so we do have a wider portion at the front here. There's existing fencing here that's being removed and replaced with the staggered fencing. And then this fencing was removed as well in the frontage here so we're only looking to provide fencing really as you connect to the existing gate in the frontage. You can kind of see here the topographic survey shows this kind of hatched area. It gets fairly steep anyway so there's no proposed fencing in this section. Let him. So, is it clear? The really helpful or would have been really helpful just to achieve the numbers because there's a long perimeter, very long perimeter, the total footage of, you know, X-heat out of this so many feet basically repairs, no gap at the bottom, so many feet will be, will stay intact the way it is today. And so many feet will be replaced. And for those who feel the footage which will be replaced, there's a gap at the bottom and design which is specified. Is that right summary? But again, the numbers are missed. Yeah, actually in the plan, the full set of plans that were resubmitted, we did list out the dimensions here. So you can kind of see them in the corner along the repair sections. The maximum repaired section length is around 50 feet. That's kind of that picture I was showing at the front or at that corner up top, where that fence was leaning down. So those poles are just really just getting reset. There's nothing that exceeds 50 feet in a repair section. But given just how when you do some of these fence repairs, when you pull off some of that and repair the poles just it exceed you know so around an average of 50 feet but you will have open passageways again here and then the frontageway so there is clear path of travel from east to west and the staggered fencing in the frontage here. Intermittent passage down the wall. Yeah exactly We're not proposing to change any of the existing neighboring fences. You know, this is this was constructed by the park. So it is along the property line. So the ownership would have to work with the park to have to cut a whole if we that was required and same with, you know, the park and this the single family so those were all installed by the neighbors not by 176 Harcross same with the existing fencing along the southern sections here those are all connective to those properties so we're just kind of patching a couple areas that seem to need some maintenance and confirming that we do have open passageway at the 100-fac conservation easement and the 50 foot and town property in the frontage with a new opening here along the bottom portion with the staggered fencing. I made you repeat the whole story again. No, that's fine. So there's no table somewhere we just sums up the length. So many feet repaired, so many feet remains the same, so many feet replaced with the design attached here. That's what I was all looking to. I couldn't find that somewhere anywhere. Okay. Yeah. No, there isn't like a summarized table, but the revised plans did show, kind of as we mentioned, where we're proposing some of those openings in the dimensions. So there's no more board questions for the out. At this point I would like to start with the second. Okay. Hi, Casey Dowdy, award way. What caught my attention was the Bob Dwyer. The volume, well, I was a teacher. I can turn it up. Oh. I'm concerned about the Bob Dwyer on the property that runs along the property. It wasn't quite sure. The handout we have doesn't have everything. And since there's so many animals in stall staff, The handout we have doesn't have everything. And since there's so many animals in stall staff, I think I would hope that the ASRB would try to come up with something that will help them be able to get through or wander. I mean, you know, they probably don't want mountain lions, but but they're part of it, too. And thank you for redoing the fencing because if we cut off access for animals to be able to roam, once it's gone, it's gone forever. So it's I'm hoping that you'll even have more access out there. Thank you. Actually, that was one of the questions I was thinking about where the barbed wire was. What was the purpose of that? Was that for the cattle fence? And would that kind of the trouble with some wildlife getting stuck in there? No actually so the the Bobberfins just runs along the frontage there along Harcross Road. Yeah sorry I started to push it back in. It runs parallel with Harcross Road. It doesn't travel east or west so passage is not intruded. It's more it just ends actually kind of at the bottom right end the screen there where the you see a dark line. Yeah, at the end of the purple there. That's just where it ends. It doesn't continue past. So passage could go on either side of it. It's just a single line that's been existing there. It connects to the wood rail fence. Yes, right there. It's where the transition is marked. The purpose. Yeah, previously, I believe it was there for cattle, but I'm not too sure. It's just been existing. There's no proposed changes. They don't want to expand the Woodrail fence or make any changes. I'm assuming that if ASRB wishes, we could ask ownership and they would be willing to remove that section. It doesn't provide any prevention of travel for any wildlife. So if that's the case then we're more than willing to make that a change. But yeah overall currently it just travels along the road and then ends it doesn't provide. I just wondering wait, speak of I know that there are groups removing some of these old cattle fences in Montana, Wyoming, because now they're dilapidated and animals are doing stuff in there. So I don't know if that's possible. And does it change anything? Yeah, it doesn't really serve any purpose for the property or ownership. So. Oh, look at that. Hi, I'm Donna Howe for 70 Las Bogas drive. I've been involved with this project for a lot of years now, particularly the last two and a half years on the fencing project. But even before that when the home was sold, I was, as say, you know, I was a bit of a probably a thorn in his side trying to learn whether this property was being looked at by developers because it's a very, very, very beautiful for those of you who have seen it. It's a very beautiful 32-acre property on the belongs to the town of Woodside on the east side of 280. And there is no such other property like this that exists on the, that belongs to Woodside on the east side of 280 and there is no such other property like this that exists on the that blocks to Woodside on the east side of 280. So I've been living there and my family, we built our home there on the border right down there at the bottom on the west side that's being circled. Thank you Melanie. And we were when we built our home we were told by the time Woodside there's this conservation easement that runs through the bottom part of your property and you are not required to build fence to do anything on this and we're really happy to hear about that It actually not only runs along the bottom of our property up through our neighbors property If you actually see it all it goes across and it comes up and then it goes up over Los Pogas Drive It was meant to allow wildlife in nature to be free. And what we did was we instead of fencing all the way down to that 100 foot, foot, easement, we've fenced pretty far away from it. We've fenced, you know, probably a little more of this side of where you see that purple line there. I'm not exactly where it is on the line. But my point is that there's a lot of space there for the wildlife. I'm really happy and I appreciate very much the SRB committee and the planning, the town planning and the heart cross team for taking wildlife into consideration and leaving that passageway open for wildlife to pass through. The other area that we feel like we've fought a little harder for was on the very far end of on the right side where there are also conservation easements and town owned property that abut to this property to have that recognized right there, have that recognized because that is a huge wildlife thoroughfare corridor habitat, whatever term you want to use to call it, that wildlife are using to pass. Right now they have free access to use this property to come and go. What is being proposed is going to enclose the property more, but I'm happy to hear that we are still leaving passageway open on the the east side on the west side. And in the middle where it meets heart cross road. So the area where it meets heart cross road, I have some concerns. I feel like I've pushed this all as far as I can as an individual homeowner that is the most directly affected by this because I live right next to it and I see why life every single day on this property, I don't want to prevent that why life from from using that property. So I'm a little concerned about that that double fence, but there's any issue with that and I just I just like to Say that I you know, I'm willing to work with them to monitor it as well. It's really close to me and my all of my neighbors drive past that every single day So we will be watching that carefully to make sure no wildlifeifer stuck in there or nothing bad happens there. A couple of things that I wanted to ask was all along the the Stolfsaft Park that entire line, can you zoom in? I just can't. The public weren't given privy to this, some of these detail. I mean, I saw it with Melanie, but I was really quick. So all of the fence that's being repaired or replaced there, Will or will not have that one foot clearance on the bottom. It will not. It will not. It will not. Okay, well, that is disappointing because that's still so park and there's a lot of wildlife in still so park so they'll have to come around. And I mean they're just openings that wildlife have been using for years because trees have knocked the fences down or holes have been cut through the fences by like I don't know what it's not in very good shape there and I'm sure you all know if you walked at the fences in terrible shape. Along our property line, there's a big old tree that's knocked it down so they can get through on our side. The other thing that my last comment or question was in regards to building this fence and the materials because there is no road on this side of that creek. There's this last open question of how materials will be dropped off there, how equipment will be taken to those fence locations and without driving across the creek. And I feel like that's something that the town just hasn't gotten resolved yet with the engineering team. So maybe they could address that. And I also want to just say that that barbed wire fence, I know really well, the barbed wire fence was around this entire property. And it was really only like two strands and barbed wire very loosely strong. It's probably was there for. You know 70, 100 years, I don't know Mrs. Cunin raised cattle on her property. All it did was prevent the cattle from from from going out. That was that was its sole purpose. Wildlife were always able to go in and out, pass that barbed wire. It didn't stop anybody because it was low, and it was only like two strands of it, so they would go through or over it. So any place where there is barbed wire left, I'm really hoping that the property managers will remove that because you're right. I mean, even the Conservation Committee, we're trying really hard to reach out to the community and ask community members to start to pull out old barbed wire fence that's been on their properties for many than thank you very much and I appreciate it and I really sideline would hope that fencing proposals would come before the environment committee instead of ASRB in the future. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone online that would like to see? There's no one online. Well, then at this point, I would like to close the public hearing portion of this meeting and we will move on to board discussion. I think this new map in the outline provided an additional mic questions in the last time you look at this. I have a much clearer picture of when it's being passed forth. Pass forward. By the way, it would be possible to use Markiplier and consider the sections not being cleared, put it in the park, one, two, three, four, five, six sections, at least supporting more above the ground. I think that was part of the regional plan. But it was not spilled out in the new year. I do have a question for sage on that. Our purview is new, opposed construction, not repair of existing. The overall fencing, as it works together for wildlife passages, something that the SRB can look at, where, to rip existing fencing out is something that SRB will decide if it's necessary or not to create wildlife passage here. There's existing fencing there, Melanie and I walked the entire length. It's the chain link fencing. I mean, it's there and it's there are some locations in which maybe a tree limb is falling on it. It's bent down on the top, but there is substantial fencing along that entire length of the property line. And some of the confusion last time was, was there a fence across the ditch? And we went out there and saw it. It's across the ditch along that property line in that area there. So wildlife can get under it in that location. It doesn't get extended down. That's even off their property. So there would be no work done in that area. But, you know, removing barbed wire fencing or looking at other needs for wildlife passage could be commented by the ASRB. First of all, I want to thank all the neighbors for coming forward. It's been a lot of time in the evening for you to come and express your views. And I think it's helped the project. I think that we've reconsidered some certain things that make sense, particularly on the east side where that wildlife corridor is. And then also, Alex, thank you for the work that you put in and revising all of this plan to make it pretty more clear what's really happening. So I just want to commend everybody that's been sort of working together to come to a solution that's somewhat agreeable to everyone. So thank everyone. Everyone. Yeah, I do want to echo that. I would like to commend you for working with the neighbors and this new plan that. Am I opinion with what is in your control? You know, opens up the property versus closes it. And respecting the design guidelines guidelines but the way the fence should look and feel as well. It was a lot of work to get here and I appreciate it. I feel the same compromises always good and I think it makes everyone happy in the end that their neighbors, neighborly. So at this point we talk about motion. Yeah, so if there's a recommendation for approval of the project. So this is similar to like a formal designer view project. So the decision made here can be then carried forward to the actual fence permit itself. The staff report outlines a number of suggested conditions of approval. So the ASRB may adopt it with those conditions. They may modify any conditions or add conditions. For example, if there's a condition to remove the barbed wire fancy that could be added to the motion. Like to make a motion that we would pass it as is and that it sounds like you guys are already willing to remove the barbed wire that that just shows one more good faith motion. I second that motion. And just to clarify, I recommend any conditions to remove the barbed wire. Yes. So, yeah, so we have a motion and second. So, we can have a vote. All right. My short camera. Yes. Remember, Ligavio? Yes. Berthaf? Yes. A remilman. I have a question. So close. Are we requiring the removal of the barbed wire in it be left open or replaced with one of the proposed beds. It's sort of no purpose. It is open. It's a tale. That's what we were asking for. Senator defect. I am for. Thank you. The motion is. Great. So we'll send out an action letter. All neighbors will get who have participated. We'll get copies of the letter. We'll send that to the applicant tomorrow. And if the applicant door neighbor is one of appeal, there will be appeal period dates outlined in that letter that gets sent out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All. Thank you. Thank you. All. Thank you. I just bring this to any reports. And so I will just note we provide the March Directors report. Just the main item to note the typical thing kind of looking at is the valuation and number of permits. From last fiscal year at this time to this fiscal year to date. And just really kind of on par with what occurred last year. You what 13 less permits overall. Some of those could have been minor permits. Overall the cost of the projects are up, meaning there's slightly larger projects being issued over the past year from the previous year, but still in the same ballpark. And then I'll give you a note on just an update for the housing element. So the town of Woodside had a draft three house element. We received preliminary comments within our 60 day review period and had a conversation with the HCD. We thought we had most of the, are all of those comments addressed and what they did is they had us make changes and without draft four of the house element. And so that was done and they agreed to keep the review period within the initial 60 days for draft three. So on February 14th, that was the 60th day from draft three with the changes in draft four. They still had two more comments to be addressed. The remaining comments are the first one is related to design review and subjective design criteria that we use here for single-family residences as well as barns and other types of fences. And so we clarified with them and they understood that you you know, any subjective review is only occurring with above moderate income single family residences. And what they wanted us to do. We already did some analysis. They wanted to provide more certainty for applicants. What I've noted is that I can't recall ever when a project was denied. There are some cases in which projects get revised through this process, but it hasn't been an impediment to building housing in Woodside, specifically the above-moderate single-family residences. And so they agree with just a little bit more analysis about our pre-application meetings we have with applicants and kind of what level of certainty they can go in based on the design guidelines that we can address that comment. That should be pretty straightforward. So the last remaining comment is regarding, you know, currently the town has four sites identified for multi-family housing as well as we allow a little bit more ADUs and are currently allowed. We also have a program to look into allowing more ADUs on properties. And what their comment was related to, they said, either find more places for multi-family housing in different parts of the town or try to find a more widespread approach, they use terms like the missing middle, missing middle is a term in which properties may have four or five units, but still kind of look like the same as some of our other properties out here that may have units within the existing residents may have some detached units. And so they are looking, I think for a little bit more of a robust program that would allow for additional units on single family residential properties. So currently the town has a program to allow for more ADUs on properties. We will need to provide something a little bit more concrete for them in terms of the number of ADUs that may be allowed on properties, which could be as high as five or six units on a property. And so that's something that they feel if we can incorporate more of those details among other things that we are already doing in our housing element that we could address that comment. So working with the town manager and town attorney's office to try to get those things wrapped up. And then as far as schedule goes, as you may be aware of the EAR, the housing element has been released. That 45 day review period for that ends on June 17th. And so after that 45 day review period, the consultant then provides response to all the comments that we've received. And then it will go to the Planning Commission for what may be the, what would be the next review of the multi-family housing standards, the objective design standards and the zoning standards for those four sites. And that would possibly be on a special meeting on June 26th. And maybe I should back up a little bit just for your knowledge. We are also shooting for bringing a study session to the planning commission about ADUs tentatively. We're looking at that to be on a June 12th meeting for the planning commission. And then so then fast forward a little bit, EIR review periods completed. So, ADU think it will just be a study session. It's just what we're doing is finding a lot of ideas that we can provide some more flexibility to allow 80 use on properties. And then the 19th is actually a holiday is why we don't have a planning commission meeting on that day. So then June 26th is a special meeting. We're hoping to have the multi-family housing standards back to the planning commission with the EIR. And then in July, we're hopefully bringing multi-family housing EIR and housing element itself to the town council for their consideration. So a lot of stuff going on the summer before August. Do we have to add site number five for this in the middle? No, so the idea is if you can allow for more kind of medium density or a little bit above low density, and it can apply to a variant, maybe all properties can't have six units on them, depending on their size or other constraints, but if those can be allowed through a variety of properties throughout the town, it spreads out the availability of these kinds of units. Like for example, there are some properties that have upwards of 12,000 square feet of total floor area allowed. But once you do the main residence of the ADUs, you still have leftover. Let you can't do any more ADUs. I like even a barn in, you can't put more into use in the way the code is currently. So that's some of what's in even what we talked to we have to call with HDD today. And that's some of what they discussed and so to some degree encouraged that yes, we know there's a certain amount of a lot of properties of us a large amount of square footage allowed and that the town may not necessarily be increasing that number, maybe they will, it depends, but wouldn't necessarily have to increase that number for properties, just allowing more of that number to be used for additional aid to use. So, as an example, Sage, if someone has a five acre property and they currently have a three thousand square foot of home and a couple of small aid to use, they could come back and put a little multi-family unit in their property. Potentially they could if that stuff gets through, if it gets the house element certified and approved by the town. It's hard to find the thing you have be looking at it to eliminate this. And it's not cool to have that both ways. When I apply and select five cars, park into the city, I hope that it's beginning when they're. Yeah, it's, I mean, it's an interesting thing in Woodside because there isn't, and a lot of neighborhoods there, it just isn't the's an interesting thing in the wood side because there isn't and a lot of neighborhoods there It just isn't the ability to park cars on the street and so that's very important That parking can be provided yet State law has certain requirements and what you can require for a parking on aid to use So the town for if it's a studio apartment, it doesn't require a parking space. But for one bedroom or more, it's only a trigger of one parking space, yet there's also some other car about parking waivers. So we would make sure we're consistent with state law. But we've had a few ADUs in the Glems recently, and we're just really working with applicants closely to try to ensure they still have the four parking spaces on site for the main residents. And then if they can provide additional parking for the aid users, definitely encourage. But it's an important issue because one, you don't want that to be an impediment to billionaire use, yet you don't have a typical neighborhood that has curb gutter and sidewalks and all locations where there's enough width on the street to park. So it's an important balance. And the EU will look at the mid-termitation of collectives, science. And there's no, it's not allowed to be able to be a parking. There's a lot of government parking somewhere. Two. are covered in some where what the women have to be leads. It's kind of like these are the big some innovation at the end of the year. Is there any constraints? What happens if you get a part of the industry? So yes. So the code has some very detailed standards of how someone can build an ADU over a garage. It gets people a little bit more in the height area when you do that. But it is something that would be discussed further with the study session to see if you want to provide a little bit more flexibility for those kinds of situations. Okay. Oh, I was going to adjourn unless you have a question. I do have a question. Okay. So, please do I have a couple of questions. Are you entertaining an edition of an ordinance for AB 1033 as part of this? I don't know enough about that yet. I'm going to be looking into that a little bit further out. And then my favorite topic, as we increase number of A to U's in one side, septic and sewer become an issue, but that's currently at least septic is not under control. How is that? That's correct. How would that conversation play out, especially with an EIR assuming we go to the get asked something? So it's with the understanding that all sites may not be able to accommodate a use based on that constraint. And so those with sewer will be talking more with the engineering department about this concept. Typically if you have an ADU, you're not another new private line into the main. You connect only one line into the main. And so all the eighties would connect into that one private line without the need for additional sewer connections. But with regard to septic, they would have to accommodate what the county permits.