Thank you. Could I have the roll call please? Member Delgavio. Present. Member Taft. Present. Member Middellman. And Vice Chair Kahnmer. Present. And Chair Lindsay is absent. Are there call for any changes to the agenda for this evening? There are no changes to the agenda. However, you do have three desk items. They are all from residents in the area of the project of 176 hard cross. I'm expressing concerns about the project and they'll be raised in the presentation by the project planner. Okay. Is there any public communications? The public's invited to address this as long as it's not an agenda item that's on the agenda today. So if this is something that's not that we're not covering today, if there's any members of the public online or in the crowd that wants to say something, please come forward. All members online are for the application at 176 Hard Cross and seeing the audience that wants to speak on something not on the agenda, and we can move on. Okay, so we don't really have a consent agenda or what? There is a consent agenda, so there are two sets of minutes on the consent agenda. There were the February 26th minutes in the March 4th minutes, and that were included in the application. So if there are any changes, we can pull one or both of those items off the consent agenda. If there are no changes, they can be approved in one motion. I recommend we approve the consent agenda. Second. Second. I agree. Member Doug Avio. I agree. Second. Just for the vote. And then member Taft. Member Middellman. And vice chair farmer. Consent agenda passes. So the agenda, the only item we have on for tonight is Harcross, the fence, the sea. So could I invite the staff to present the staff report? Yes. My name is Melanie Olson, and I will be presenting today's item for 176 Harcross. Give me just a moment to share my screen. Okay. Thank you so much for waiting. The revision for 176 Harcross Road includes a revision to the town approved fencing plans on a 32-acre site. The revision's concern staff since the proposal did not necessarily follow the resent design guidelines in terms of minimizing fencing to the greatest extent possible, specifically perimeter fencing and is not considered wildlife friendly since the fences are proposed to be connected to most existing fencing that are about six feet tall, welded wire mesh, but they do include one foot openings at the bottom on the new proposed fencing. And lastly, the revised proposal really only provides wildlife corridors along the west and south property lines. So essentially if you're looking at the plan on the left side and at the front of the property. So the planning director has recommended the proposal go to the ASRB for fence design review. There are three desk items added to today's meeting for this item. There are all letters from the Woodside Residence that do not support the revised project primarily due to the impacts of the enclosed perimeter fencing on the 32 acre site, specifically what the proposed fencing would have for the wildlife passage through the property. Which staff is also concerned with. And the question of also in the desk items, there's questioning of the existing fencing, including its called out locations on the site plan, as well as what is planned to be repaired and what does that repair include? So there is some clarification that will be needed. However, if the ASRB does approve this fence design today, any repair replacement of existing fencing would require verification of all existing conditions to ensure that the repairs don't necessarily mean new changes that are not being proposed. If any changes are being proposed to the existing Fencing, then we would need further review. Oh, and I'm, yeah, I'm still going. Thank you. So just to give you a brief overview of the property, it is approximately 32 acres in the our residential zoning district. The property has an existing one main residence accessory structures in a pool. There's currently some existing fencing along the property as shown. In the upcoming slides, the property is slightly sloped, but overall, relatively flat in the developed areas. However, there are slopes greater than 35 percent. That include a drainage swale, kind of along this, the center horizontal plane of the property. the city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's city's park the property. The is on the left. Here is where the is on the side of the property. Here is the 100-foot conservation easement on the adjacent property. It is not on the 176 heart cross. It is just next to it. What you are looking at currently are the town approved plans what is currently allowed for the applicant to currently build on their property. It includes visually opening open fencing with double fences that are inset into the property about 50 feet from all those from the property lines as you could see along here. Also along the southwest sides and then approximately 150 feet from the rear of the property and between 130 and 240 feet at the front of the property here. The approved Fencing came with a detailed fence and wildlife movement assessment report that was evaluated in the direction of the previous planning director. The assessment described the double fencing with which varied in height, which was said to discourage larger animals from jumping over the fence and that it would provide safe passage for smaller and medium sized animals. scourge larger animals from jumping over the fence and that it would provide safe passage for smaller and medium sized animals. It also provides a 4 inch gap at the bottom for smaller animals. They're proposed to be brown, welded wire mesh fences with two different heights, front being four feet and the rear being six feet approximately three feet apart from each other. In February of 2024, the applicant submitted for a revision to the town of roof plans to remove the double fencing and move the location of the fencing from the interior of the property to directly on the on most of the property lines to join existing fencing to enclose most of the 32 acres aside from the front of the property. Along Harcross Road. The green lines show the existing fencing and the highlighted areas in yellow show the proposed fencing in February 2024. At that time, the applicant proposed three different variations that were visually open, also six feet tall, welded wire fencing. However, at this phase, they had four inch openings at the bottom. The ASRB during the February meeting reviewed the application, public comments deliberated. They recommended not denial of the application and suggested that the property owner explore installation of fencing closer to the main residence to provide more security for that area while leaving larger portions of the 32 acres site open for wildlife passage. The application is currently proposing an updated revision to the town approved fence plans. The applicant is maintaining the perimeter fencing along most property lines. However, on the western side of the property, they have left an opening adjacent to the 100 foot conservation to allow for wildlife passage along the property. The applicants current revision proposes two similar types of fencing, both of which are visually open, six foot tall, welded wire fencing, with one foot openings at the bottom to allow for smaller wildlife passage. The applicant and their team are here in person as well as online and they're available for questions and they'll be giving a presentation when their return is coming up. Staff is available for questions at this time. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Questions for this? Qualification question for general context What is the goal the end goal for this fencing? And it's apparently very well thought through, but what is the What is the context what are what are the owners trying to achieve? That security. Yeah, at the last meeting they mentioned for safety and security, I believe, but that might also be a great question to ask them after their presentation. If again, just a reminder, I'll make sure we speak directly into the microphone so people on Zoom can hear it clearly. Any other questions for the board to staff? No, thank you. Okay, so now we would like to invite the applicant to make a presentation. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I am Jim Toby. My name is Jim Toby. I'm a civil engineer in the project representing the applicant. Here to give you a little presentation on some of the changes that we've made, we've taken a lot of the ideas that the neighbors and everybody else has addressed into heart and made a lot of revisions that we think is going to be a lot more valuable to the context of neighborhoods, especially from the wildlife point of view. Aside from myself tonight, I have a strong event that who's the biologist who can really kind of dive in and give you sort of why we think this is actually good for the wildlife. This is what his specialty is so we can get more of an idea of how this really does affect wildlife. So what you see in front of you here is the previous version of our scene. I'm sorry. Yes, this is the proposed version of the plan. You can see here the items in yellow are what we're actually proposing now. The everything in green is an existing fence that we're proposing either to leave as is, make small repairs to if it's really in bad shape, but generally we're looking at the yellow areas here. That's what we're trying to accomplish today. And we've made a whole bunch of changes based on what everybody has been talking about both yourselves and the public. Is this going forward? There it goes. Okay, look at the previous plan. The previous plan had more areas where we were gonna be doing more work previously in the upper left hand side of the screen you see there. There was a portion of the fence that was going along that back corner there and across the creek. We've completely eliminated that. We're not going to do that. We're not going to even get a worry about that anymore. That was something that just wasn't going to be looked at as being very good. So the other area you see on the right-hand side, which is also surrounded in a blue line, that's an area we also decide to just simply leave alone as is. It's an existing wire fence. We're just not going to do anything with it. We may repair it if we need to or you know, see what we need, what we may want to do with it. The rest of it in yellow. So the bottom port, you see right there, which is by Las Pulgas. That one at the very bottom of your screen there, that was originally going to be just a straight fence along the property line. We've made a change. That change is specifically to show that we are adding a place for a while left to get through. As you guys were asking the question, what is the overall end goal here? It's privacy and security. We're trying to keep people out and just also keep some sort of semblance of it. Part of why we decided to do the separation of offenses is twofold. It was to provide an easy access for a wildlife to get through. So we're providing an opening 15 feet wide to allow wildlife through. So when I get to the next page, we get to that in a second, you'll see how we've kind of made this so it's easy, but it also provides a little bit of security and you know, even though we're doing a wire fast fence, having two of them kind of staggered apart will also kind of help screen the property from Las pull this a little bit too. But not be so detrimental that it looks intrusive. So some of the previous concerns that were brought up was that the proposal can find the passage of wildlife. So what we decided to do is we've added the height of that fence. I'll get to that in one second where we've made it much more conducive for wildlife to get through. And we've also allowed, we've removed portions of that creek crossing so we don't have as much of a problem in that area knowing that that's more of a sensitive area. The other one of the other concerns was that the proposed fence would be an entanglement for a wildlife. We've reviewed that with the biologist. He's here tonight and we can kind of go over that a little bit. But in general, what we did here, as you can see here, the previous fence design had in yellow, you can see there a six inch opening. That's still good enough for almost every animal. Whoever can't jump a fence would be able to get underneath with a six inch. But to be sure there's not much of a problem, we decided to go ahead and change that so that you're going to have actually a one foot opening. I'll just be right here. At the very bottom of your screen, we, like I was saying a minute ago, were actually staggering this fence so that the idea is that as you go along, you'll be able to hold out wildlife to go through there. So I do have a couple pictures here just to kind of show you what is there now. I'm kind of going a little bit about a border I apologize here. I got ahead of myself. This area right here is right next to the school. It is on the Easterly Edge. This is the area in yellow you'll see in a second here. That's the area in red right here you see and this is what it looks like right now. Come on. There it goes. And so we're proposing to do just a regular fence right there that's going to have that one foot opening right there and replace what we used to here today. Okay. This is the view from most polka's road as it currently is. It's even hard to see what's there, but there's a wire fence. You can see the metal posts that are there. What we're proposing to do is to ride a wildlife passageway around that area. This is in the bottom of your screen there. The idea is this area right here and red is going to have the two fences. There'll be a large opening that's 15 feet wide so that any wildlife can literally come in, make a maneuver as they would follow this blue line right here to get in and out of the property. So keeping it so that wildlife really can get through, making sure that there's just this wide password. It's 15 feet wide. That's very wide. I mean, we can literally almost drive a car through there, but the idea is to allow larger animals, deer and stuff like that to be able to get in and really utilize this area still. We don't want to block them off. So, this is an example example just a view of the gate. If you go in the new fences for this will be on either side of the gate, but outside of the creek it will be on the uphill side of that creek that's running underneath. There's a bridge right in front of there. I think most of you either have been by there or seen this property. So the idea is having that fence outside the corridor of the creek. And therefore we're providing that one foot opening on the bottom, as well as the fence that most large animals can jump over. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to the project biologist Sean. And he'd give you more of an idea of how the impact of the fence we're proposing actually does impact wildlife. Hi, I'm the name is Sean Avent. I'm with Sunset Ecological Solutions. I've been working on this property for about two years and I've been working in the town of Woodside and on the peninsula for over 10 years with various companies. I'm a wildlife bi, but also a wetland biologist with some botany as well. But I really want to talk about the fence design. My job here is to analyze what is proposed for the fences and tell you what the wildlife constraints are for these fences. When we talk about wildlife friendly fences, we talk about two different things. Number one, we talk about wildlife entanglement and fences and how they can get caught in a fence when they try to attempt acrossing, but secondarily, we talk about restrictions to movement. And what I've seen with this fence design is that it both, it makes sure that both of those factors are accessible for wildlife. With the context of the project, I want you to see the large section of the fence along Solstath Park and also the very long fence that separates the property from the school and from the neighborhood to the north and northeast and also offenses to the Southwest. All these are really high fences. They're not wildlife safe. And what we're trying to do is actually provide wildlife safe fences. What the client has done. What the applicant has done is provide wildlife safe passage around the southern access points. None of the fences around any of the property are lifted up off the ground at all. There is no wildlife passage. Not only that, but the fences on the top have barbs on the top where they cross. Those are wildlife entrapment hazards and hanging up hazards. But none of these fences actually that I believe actually belong to the applicant themselves. They're owned by the park district, the Stolfsaft Park, etc. But let's focus on the yellow areas where they are doing work. Every single one of these fences is going to be lifted up one foot off the ground. That's enough for any animal that can't jump over the fence to get under. So there is no wildlife movement restriction. When we talk about wildlife entanglement for animals that might want to jump over a fence, all these fences have a straight wire at the top. They're not gonna get entangled, caught up while they try to attempt to jump the fence. Given that, I I think you know my analysis is that it's not going to significantly impact movements and or cause any wildlife entanglement issues I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Okay. Does anyone on the I'm sure that from the engineering perspective, from the ecological perspective, we are working with, we are dealing with the real pros who know, who are real recognized experts, granted recognizing this. From the context perspective, if the owners are looking for safety, and I'm not on 32 acres, but I'm on the acreage and I'm concerned that safety I can relate to this. That one foot gap at the bottom, any reasonable size guy can just climb underneath. So maybe while I try to achieve to solve a problem with potential problem for the animals, they are urging safety, which is their goal. I agree. I think that's something that we're, that's what I think when we first came the first time we were looking at something that was much closer to the ground because they were trying to, you know, be mindful of near letting people in or some like that, but they also be want to be mindful to what the everybody in the neighborhood is feeling and also what the wildlife is. So I think in even a talking to Sean, he may be able to use in context and what the minimum height of a wall or a fence might be that he thinks from wildlife, you know, from his professional opinion might be that we can look at too. In its double fence, no? I mean, there is a lower, at least in the annual original proposal, lower fence like 4 feet tall, 4 foot tall fence, and then 6 foot tall fence. So, and the neighbors are objecting mainly for the outer perimeter. So maybe there is some kind of a easy compromise. Just to clarify, the double fence is from the previous the current proposal doesn't have a double-pens. Except one place on the bottom of the line. We did that specifically for a while. I have a few questions actually. You say the staggered fences. They're actually parallel to one another. Just no offset just their parallel and then in considering six foot versus four foot Why everywhere six foot isn't it generally everywhere six foot? It's six foot everywhere. That's what we're looking for. That's just a standard fence height That's a fence height that like Sean was saying any animal that can't make it underneath the one foot mark can easily make it over the six foot mark. So we were looking at something that's kind of, you know, we want to hide fence as much as we can. We realize we don't want to go too high because of the wildlife, because of the towns ordinances and stuff like that. So we felt six feet was the right appropriate height for that. And can you address some of the desk notes that have come in today about existing, that's not really existing potentially, or is there some confusion about what's existing at what needs to be repaired if it's actually there? Well, there's fence all the way around this property. There are places where the fence has actually fallen down completely, and we're proposing just to simply put them back up in their same state. There are some places that are, you know, just need a small fix, you know, the wires just come loose from the pole that's attached to you and there's some places where the wires have just simply fallen down because of the longevity they've been there for so many decades probably. All the fence, there is a fence all the way around except for the area at the entrance. That's the only place that there's not, which is right by where the gate is right now, that area never has never had a fence, but everywhere around the rest of the property has always had a fence. Yes. That's correct. I just have one question that if you could clarify it, there were two conservation easements. There's the west, which you're leaving open. And then there's the east. But now these conservation easements, were they on your property to begin with? Or are they on a property parallel, both the East and the West? So currently there are no conservation easements on this property whatsoever. They're on the next store neighbor's property, but they're none on our property. And is the East one near the school? Is that where the East one is? There's the one. The East. This works. There we go. There's a conservation right here. This is the conservation easement. I don't know if you can see on the other screen in front of you. There's this conservation is 100 foot conservation easement, which is kind of on the West early corner of the property. And that starts at the property line and continues on the neighbor's property. It doesn't it stops at our property. I believe there's another conservation used at the front that also is on neighboring property. That in case is probably this creek, this right here. But none of the conservation used must actually extend onto our property. I'm sorry. There is actually a chain link fence that's there now and has been there for decades. We're not purples and the touch it. And then one more when you say like for like the gates and the two fences leading to it there just what a couple of feet tall and now they're going to be six feet. No only and the only thing where it's going to go six feet is going to be where the yellow is. Yes everything else is just whatever's there now we're going to we're going to prepare it to whatever in its exact state. The only thing we might do is if portions of it I know there are a couple places on the site where there's some barbed wire we would place them with regular wire. But over here, I'm just to get back to the Eastern conservation area. It doesn't appear that there was a fence there to begin with. I don't see green. Was there? There was there is I double checked it. There is a fence somehow. Yeah, there is a fence. I apologize. There's no green highlight, but I did double to touch. It's just there. It does allow that fence is there. It did let's see a picture of it. It basically just goes right over the top of the creek. It allows for the when the creek creates a channel. It all there's a large opening under the fence that allows wildlife through and water and everything. So keep debris from clogging it up. So you can imagine if the ground is flat and it all sun dips down for the creek itself and it flat on the other side, the fence just goes straight across. At one foot above the ground. No, no, it's literally a way above ground. So you'd be like four or five feet above ground at that point. But on the either side of it, it's still one foot. No, it's an existing fence that's all the way to the ground. Not the new fence. The new fence will be the one that has the one foot gap. All no, no, no, you're talking about this line right here? Oh, that's going to remain, that's now a section that's going to be open so that wildlife can get through. So that little part of the block is going to be fence that's existing fence that's being removed. And then we're going to, that's why we have the two parallel fences there to provide that passageway. That black blue, that's a floppy line. Yes, that is correct. The black is always a black. The black is a black. The black is a black. The black is a black. The black is a black. The black case. So at the bottom right, where the blue line is, we're looking at where the blue line is. Right where the fence, the yellow lines, there's two parallel yellow lines. One parallel line is longer than the other and it goes all the way to the green property line. The other one only goes a part of the way and they're 15 feet apart. The, every, the black line that's between that to the corner of the property is going to be removed to allow for wildlife passes to go between the two fences. That is the existing fence that's being remained. Yeah. I just point out that the application doesn't show an existing fence there. So this is some piece of new information. The applicants. Yeah, I probably it's on the topographic survey, but when the this drawing was done into the property here, right? Yes. So the owners want to have a gate that road protected by fence. There is an existing gate right there. Right. And we're not proposing to make a change to that gate. Right. We're just talking about adding the yellow on both sides of the gate. Which is very common. We have a gate and then you have more solid tension and not tension, but kind of wall possible. Right. But this is probably not a point of contention for any of the neighbors. So that the old part is just fine. It's it's very logical and normal, right? Yes. So we're way out the road. We're more than a hundred feet off the main road. Right. So again, green line is a pretty existing condition. Correct. I'm not clear again. What is this again? It's just an easement for PG for PG&E. Yeah, how will PG&E will get there? I mean The same way they get there now they have to just traverse through the mountain side There's a poll the corner right here where it makes an ankle point. There's a utility poll That's allowing overhead wires to the overhead wires are going to remain. We're not changing that whatsoever Again from the owners perspective I have a problem with pitch journey they they drive in and they think it's some kind of a state park or or You know because they have an easement But they have actually easement or or they're For the epic line not for the access. So here, and design wise, it's something to consider. How would they get in? They would be able to come in, if they were to be able to come in, they would come here where it's nice and flat right here and be able to drive in this area, way past the fence. They couldn't get this close to the creek anyway. This is where the creek is where this dark line right here is that is the top of the bank of the creek. Our new fence is outside of that top of bank, but to get if they ever needed to get to this utility pole they literally would drive in the driveway and drive right on this back side of that new fence. So new fence wouldn't have any impact on Pugini if they ever needed to get to that pole Other than they're having access to clear the gates. They would have to go through that same gate. The white gate we saw a few minutes ago. Thank you. And is there any exit for wildlife at the top of the plan at all or just the bottom of the left of the plan? Can you say top of the plan? What do you mean? Well, point as it comes up on either side. So right now if you were to if you were to ask me where is the wildlife able to get through they can get through right here There they can easily get through right here They could you know they can most of the time hope be able to cross right through that gate That's really can't stop anything except you know be a visual deterrent to people the community. The community. They could most of the time will be able to cross through that gate. That's really can't stop anything. Be a visual deterrent to people. There is, but there's fence on the corner, but there's a huge opening underneath it. There's like a four foot opening underneath it. The point comes to a point right in the left. There is a the It will. In terms of, you know, this, this is a, this right here, literally they could run through, you know, 15 feet wide, they can run through it. It's replacing existing wire fence. Oh, right now. The fire section is on the power quarter. It's been sold. Yes. We're adding a hole right in a 15 foot wide. Basically wildlife access between there, where right now there is a wire fence. Should point out the the proof plans to not have any fencing along that property. So, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's existing fencing. And I didn't read the plans as showing G and F as existing fencing. I just see it to show new welded wire fencing. There is where the where the black line is along the property line, the whole property line, there's an existing wire fence. Gnet, we're going to remove that wire fence and add G&F And that was not provided in the plans Just an offside where were the goats today just to put me in first half? I wasn't there so I don't know I was on site This is here where you could just where you drive in this is our crosses where you drive in right here. Okay If there is existing fencing doesn't show any existing fencing on the approved plans. It just shows that the new fence is 50 feet away from the property line. And those are the approved plans. The current plans are there before you today to existing fencing along part of that property line where section f and g are there's nothing that identifies any existing fence in that location. I feel I apologize. I can't see a particular question. It's a paper out for the end. So I'll get work. Where are the animals? They're outside of the game. They're going to come in here and they're going to either, they're going to do one or two things. They're going to come right through there so I can show you. It's important to understand for a wildlife passage that sometimes from a certain point an animal might easily jump offense. And once they find themselves on the property or the wildlife passage ideas to provide Various areas in which they could find their way out You know say you jump over a fence going downhill. Maybe that's easier than trying to jump a fence going uphill For example, that's a scenario. So there are some straight animals jump over there on the property and they need to escape Well, there's there's two things that happen here. So we got the blue line. You see if you see the blue line on the bottom of your screen there, that is an open, straight, you and I could walk it to the, you can, when this is all that said and done, you and I would be able to walk through there. Animals could walk through there. It is 15 feet wide. aside from that, if they're we're talking about the other areas like on the front there, every pretty much as Sean would mentioned, any animal that wants to get by there, if they're small enough, they'll go underneath. If they're too large to go underneath that one foot passage, they're large enough to jump it. There's three openings essentially, right, where the two creeks are and then where the yellow fence is. So there's three escape paths. They could get through right here. They could get through right here and they could get through right there. Yes. The existing fence connects to the two parallel fences when you're talking about this point right here. Yes, it'll just connect to the existing fence. But there's an opening right here on the bottom where the where the where the blue comes out and on the Los Trinkels road That is open completely open ready for wildlife. There's no where you see the blue line. There's no hindrance There's no hindrance for wildlife whatsoever wildlife could just walk right through there There's no fence to jump. There's nothing to go underneath. They just go right through A little bit. Sorry, I'm used to it. Are there any other board questions for the applicant? Sure Yes. Sure. Is there any best that's in no best? No. No. And I can say the same about roads and paths. What are the current layer? Okay. And one more question for general context. The neighbors are concerned with wildlife. I mean, it's a kind of white elephant in the room. Neighbors oftentimes are concerned with aesthetics as well. So is it strictly wildlife or aesthetics? There are portions of the fence, which no one wants to see. But it sounds like it's, it's, it's, uh, cosmetic rate will be an improvement over the existing situation. So it's strictly animals. There's no other concern which has been expressed. I mean, the desk items before you talk about both issues primarily, the wildlife issue, but also we haven't taken public comment yet. Um, so I think it's important to make sure that you take all public comment and understand what positions that other people may provide. Any other thoughts? You could still have a chance at feedback. Now we're going to open it up to the public hearing. So if there's anyone from the public online or in the audience that would like to speak up please stand up raise your hand okay. We'll have we'll take Donna here in the room and then we have a member online that would like to speak afterwards I'm just going to start. I own the property that is bordering the southwest portion of this 32 acre property. So right there, right there. That's my property. I'd like to address the locations where it's being proposed that there be openings for wildlife to pass through. So I'll start on that section where I border the property. Oops, actually, yeah, I would love to keep showing that map. Oh, thank you. Okay. So right now, my husband and I bought this property, I don't know, 25 years ago. We've been living there for 18 and we've built a home in what's I? My husband and I bought this property, I don't know, 20, 25 years ago. We've been living there for 18 and we've built a home in what's high. We've lived there for 18 years. We have this conservation easement down at the bottom end of our property, down where you see that black box and that border still set of park. But when we fenced our property, we did not fence all the way down to that 100 foot conservation zone. Where you see the arrow on the far right side of your screen right now, where you see that arrow right next to that bubble, that's about as far as we fenced. And from there, straight over to the other side, we're fenced across there. So we left a substantial portion of our property available for a while left to live on, far more than the required 100 foot conservation easement. So I'm a little confused about the people saying that there are fences. There is no fence between that arrow and that conservation easement. There is no fence. There was a, there was an old barbed wire fence there that Mrs. Cunen used to keep her cattle on her property. It was, I think, two strands of barbed wire. It was very, very old. And about two to three years ago, most of that, I think, when this process started, the new owners wanted to fence, that fencing was pulled down. So I have lots of I have lots of pictures that I could pull up and show you there is there is no fence there. So to my question is when it said this is why I was so confused by all of this where on fear so many locations where it says fence to remain, if there's no fence there, then what do you mean by fence to remain? And what if they're talking about the old Barbara or fence, then what are they replacing that old Barbara fence with? Is that a new Barbara fence? How high is that fence? What does that fence look like? Is that a wildlife-friendly fence? So that is my question about that area there. There is no other fence between my property and the hard cross property in that location. If there's anything it would be something that was existing long, long before we even bought the property. And you virtually can't walk in that. It is such dense vegetation and a very, very deep where the property line crosses, you see that black part. That's an example of like, it's very, very, very very deep there there's an ephemeral stream that runs through there all the way across my property and yes all of that dark I mean it just doesn't show it on the map because we're only looking at hard cross but if you were also looking at for 70 less pulgas you would see that same ephemeral stream coming all the way across it's very deep and essentially I don't know how you would even fence it to begin with because as he says, you might run a fence across it, but then down below by sometimes 10 feet, there's nothing there because it's just too deep. So that's that part that I wanted to address. Now if we could go to the double fence Right right here. Okay right here Also right now and I'm sorry. I really don't want to like You know imply that if you could just please address the board. I'm sorry, but I just don't want to apply that they're not speaking the truth, but there is no fence there. There are posts there. There are there is no fence in that location. As it exists right now. Just yesterday, there was a fawn nestled down in the grasses in that section. Last night, I saw a coyote walking down the road toward that area. That is an area that is extremely well used by the wildlife in our area. They cross into the harcross property from the forest on the other side. From the forest on the other side of Las Pocas Drive, which is what the road that you see. On the other side of that is forest. This is a corridor. This is a corridor. I feel like the improvements that are made on this fence design is like leaving that conservation easement open up on the, you know, down at the end of my property. And then in this section, creating a 15 foot separated double fence, it does, I think it will work. Honestly, I have never seen this so I don't have any experience with it. But what I can say is that I have had a six-foot fence around my property. I own 3.75 acres and probably maybe two and a half are fenced because remember I said that I left a huge section unfenced for the wildlife. My six-foot fence has never once been breached by a deer. Deer do not jump six-foot fences in that area. I mean, if there's a fire, then maybe they would certainly try that. Fawn could not. No other coyotes will go under the one-foot opening. But deer and fawns will not go under a one-foot opening. So they are excluding the deer with the six-foot fence unless the deer use this passageway here. So if we move over to the right side and this is an area that I really want to address because this is the third time that this property has come before the town for offense design. If you could move up so I could see the conservation easement area on the bottom on the other direction. Yeah, there. What's not shown on this map is there is another while life conservation easement that that is another Las Polgues estate property right there. They have the same conservation easement that I have on my property that's right there on the, I mean I could show you when I different map, but it's not on here. And then between their conservation easement and Harcross Road is a town of Woodside-owned easement. So there is a wide swath of land that's there, that the wildlife are currently using that is completely open to them. This property also, as well as mine, this is a, I think, is 460 Las Pulcas drive, the Chandras. Chandras, they do not have their property fenced at the bottom. And while I've run freely, again, we walked this land the other day. We saw deer, we saw crazy, we've got a lot of crazy turkeys where we live, they're hilarious. And there are no fences there. There's a property line, but there are no fences there. by not leaving that open and not allowing the wildlife to enter the harcust property, you're essentially closing off those easements so that wildlife will then no longer be able to enter that way. They will just go out on the road. They'll be on, they'll be on our cross road. And you know, we do see them sometimes on the road anyway, but normally they, they utilize that again. That's very dense for us. You see that topography there. It's extremely difficult to walk. It's very steep. The vegetation is extremely dense. Beautiful oak trees. It's actually a gorgeous area. I would like to see an opening there for wildlife to pass through. I think that that's a critical area. That would allow the wildlife to enter and exit the 32 acre hard cross property at three different locations at two ends of There are openings in the Stullshaft Park fence. And I don't think we should ask them to repair those because I've always thought, well, that's good that wildlife are able to get through. I actually have occasionally dogs coming up on my property that have gotten through those fences. So I know that there are openings. It's still a tough part. Wildlife are using all of these, all of these, every way that they can possibly get through they're using it. But the most important thing to point out here is that that ephemeral stream that runs right across there, that dark area that runs all the way across, the wildlife are using that. That's where they're going. That's where their trails are. That's where they want it. They get their water source. That's where the most lush feeding area is. And the goal of the Las Pulgas is states community, particularly. And I know many people in the Las in the Witz-A-Hills community also hope that this property continues to be habitat for the wildlife in our area. I would hope that that is done as well. I just want to address a couple of things really quickly before I go. This is the largest privately owned property, east of 280, the belongs that's in the town of Woodside. It's extremely significant. It's extremely significant for the wildlife on that side of 280 for Woodside. We talked about the existing fences. We talked about those conservation easements. We talked about the height of the fence. The only thing that needs to be clarified in addition to where it says fence exists. Fence to remain and then up at the top it shows the very top there on the dark green at the very, very top right. It says, I believe it says perimeter fence repair as needed. So I'm very confused by how we're replacing a fence that doesn't exist. If a fence has been pulled out, does that mean that they get to go back and replace it with a barbed wire fence that was there before? That's a real, that's a, that's a question I think that really needs to be addressed by the ASRB. The other issue that needs to be addressed is there are no roads. There are, there is no access for large vehicles at all, only like maybe an ATV on the, on the bottom side of that ephemeral stream except for the road,V on the bottom side of that ephemeral stream except for the road, except for the road that you see that's the road that enters the property. There are no other roads. So the question is, how are they going to get equipment and materials to these fencing locations? And that's without, how can they do that without driving over a federal stream culvert which mine or stanny is you're not supposed to do that in the town of Woodside. So you know myself my family along with lots of concern residents in Woodside we request that you read it address these issues and assure the protection of our local wildlife and the integrity of our community. Thank you. We have FE Calafantes. You may speak. We're going to promote you to a panelist, and then you and then you can speak? We'll go back to FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF to FFF, you can unmute yourself. There's a member of the landscape architect team, the third low associates, they have their hand raised. Allow them to speak. They are part of the applicants team. Hi there. Stefan Trillo here. We have a landscape architecture firm Trillo associates working with this project. And I think there was a little confusion with the diagram. I just wanted to really confirm that that area that Donna mentioned that is near her property that shows as green fence to remain is indeed open. There is no fencing and we are not intending to add a fence there. So we absolutely would like to keep that area that is south of the creek, oh, without any fencing. Then the other section, which was in a previous document shown as section F, which is the area that is parallel to Harkbross. That section has a fence, but it's a fall-end down fence and that fence we will remove and there won't be fencing there as well. So in other words, we are leaving approximately to roughly 100 foot corridors open for plenty of wildlife to move through 176 Haar Cross. Sorry, can everyone hear me? Yes. Sorry, can everyone hear me? Yes. Okay. If we look at this diagram, it says section F, where those two overlap in Fensisa, I was actually talking about the green fence section that runs parallel to Haar Cross. It's below section E, that one stretch there. That was the area that Donna described as being nicely wooded. They are alks, they are batteries, it's very steep. That is the area that has a degraded fall and down fence, which we can remove entirely and have that entire 150 foot segment unfenced. And I apologize that the diagrams were maybe, or not just maybe they were misleading. So do you have anything else to go along with otherwise? We'll answer some questions from the answer. No, I think those are the two really major items that hopefully will clarify some of Donas or the communities of what's concerns. And you also said something over there by Donas property, but there is no place there. So it removes there. So those, that area between the two arrows that Dona mentioned, there was previously a fence that was removed and the survey showed a fence there and that's why we ended up with a green line there where there shouldn't be one. There is no fencing and we have the fullest intent to leave that area open. Thank you. And then let's just double check to see if Fee has lowered the hand. Fee, would you like to speak? Okay. So we've heard some, oh sorry, Effie, you may unmute yourself and speak. We can't hear you if you're speaking. Is there a microphone volume possibly? Possibly, fortunately, still can't hear. I apologize. We just can't hear you. I don't know if you want to try to adjust your microphone. And please jump in if you if you can. I'm going to turn it over to you. Sorry, unfortunately, we can't hear you. I'll go to try to answer the question that came from member Delgavio. Or do you want to, I'll find your question there. I believe we have now, but I just wanted to see for the architect, the area that was clouded on the bottom right in sort of an L shape cloud that is no longer going to be fenced. So the clouded area, he was suggesting that's a yellow, this area here that's clouded, yes. That's what he was speaking to. Is that fence it's spoken about it being a fallen down fence and that potentially could be left open. So what I was going to get at is we heard a number of things that haven't been entirely clear on the plans. So the ASRB, I think should provide some discussion on the item to understand where the members stand at least with this particular project. There's concerns about additional information being necessary, some of which could be as far as staff and even ASRB on site visits, verifying certain locations of fencing, as well as having the applicant clarify where they actually intend to install fencing. If it has fallen down, it's been gone for some time. It just, it isn't existing and that's something that could be further clarified. So the ASRB has different options to look at as part of your deliberation just because there's some new information here. I just want to point it out. One is that the ASRB could recommend approval of the application as submitted maybe with some conditions based on clarifications. The ASRB could continue the item that with direction partially to staff maybe and partially to the applicant to provide additional information and verification before making any final recommendation. And then the third option would be for the ASRB could make a recommendation of denial for the project as proposed. So I just want to give you those different options as you. Yes, yes. We can close the public hearing and unfortunately apologize that few were not able to hear you but you can close the public hearing and go to deliberation. No problem. Before board discussion. So we'll take a break. We'll be back in two minutes. And we'll record we're on deliberation. There's no need for a motion to deliberate. So you can just, as you feel or as the chair may direct you to provide your time to speak. I mean, it's still a little more information. So my suggestion is that we continue. So we have planned verification and correction and a resubmital with valid information, which will satisfy the audience as well as the board, in my opinion. I would feel comfortable with, I think we need, I mean, in light of this new information, which was very helpful and solve some of our real concerns, I would feel comfortable moving this forward to formal to. So this is just a review of the, so this is essentially a formal designer review. Right. Review. So the recommendation, the S or B, you'd either be conditioning a project to do certain things. but this is the designer view of the project. So if they were to come in with a fence permit, you recommended approval of the project. You may play specific conditions on that recommendation. So you'd really want to clarify the specific items that you want to address. Oh, okay, because I would feel comfortable. I mean, first of all, from a design standpoint, I like the new fence. I think it's, you know, goes with what you see in most, I mean, I've been driving around since our last meeting. Look at it every day. I'm seeing our fences. And so from a design standpoint that works, and now addressing some of these wildlife concerns, it looks like it's more open-designed. So I think if we have the conditions on what really is the fancy, I mean where is it going to be? Would meet my concerns. So given that this is something that staff forwarded to the ASRB, we would like to get specific direction if you wanna condition items. On a large site, you know, if it's very clear on where they stop and start having no fences, what distances, those are, that's kind of the direction we'd really be looking for, that specificity, that may be a little bit difficult. I mean, from my perspective, I had much of notes that come out in design guidelines. At least with the fence, I had much notes about design guidelines. At least with the fence, I agree with you. The design of the fence is great. But I don't know what I'm approving. I've heard people tell me there's fence places that are isn't fence. And like to me, before the meeting, this looked like a completing enclosure of 32 acres. And that I was not ready to approve. But hearing that there's actually less fence than what's proposed, that's a different conversation. And so, I mean, I would like to see the applicant return with exhibits that accurately depict what exists today. So we really know what is being proposed, what is being removed, and what the final state will actually look like. And so, I, otherwise, I don't know what I'm approving. And if it is an improvement, then great. And if they're actually,, sage can ask your question. If they were only coming in to repair what exists today, like a chain link fence fell down. It's eight feet tall. You got approved in 1973 to be put up in eight for its all fence. We wouldn't even be having a conversation, correct? Yes. And fallen down, meaning something literally just fell down. If something's been fallen and gone, that's a different conversation. We wouldn't, it would just not be there. But if someone were just to repair a fence today, it's life-relike, depending on the extent of a fence, it may trigger a permit. But if it is exactly life-relike of doing repairs, there's a certain distance. If you go over 100 feet, you need to get a permit. But if it's life for like, that's something that could be approved that staff love you're correct. Yeah, so like if this application is truly replacing six feet chain link fence with something that's even better for wildlife and opening up the property versus maintaining an enclosure, I'm happy to hear that, I'm happy to approve that, but I can't approve that based on what I see today. So I would like to see them come back with a much more clear set of exhibits. You speak into the microphone please, thanks. I would like to say comment on that. And to it. My understanding is that the engineering firm representing the owners is very well established, very well known in the area. And if there's a proof that there had been a defense, which I assume was the case, there is no need to further investigate it. I would take it for the face value of all of it. But the change which the architecture from, I don't remember the name. So the landscape architect? Yes. Well, there was an architect commenting on this, right? Yeah. Landscape architect. Oh, possibly. It sounds like it satisfies the expectations of one of the neighbors just here. So that certainly needs to be shown on the map. Also conservation zones mentioned a few times, only one of them is shown. The other neighboring conservation zones are not shown. Be hopeful to show them to actually indeed see that they are contiguous. At the end of the day, they'll be contiguous. Assuming that all of the above is done, I'd not say new reason to approve it. It's, it's, I think it's, it should move forward. So we've heard some comments about possibly continuing the item to further clarify the locations of existing fencing, the state of the existing fencing conditions, and then further clarify where fencing actually will be installed, modified, repaired, as well as showing the adjacent, clearly showing any adjacent conservation easements as we know that there's been that exist on the property, but to ensure that if there are any further adjacent conservation easements, those locations are shown. And so with those items, the SRB could make a motion to continue the item and staff could work with the applicant to get that information and bring it back to the SRB. I would like to make that motion to continue the item and see a more clear application at a flamethrower date. Seconded. That would be great. Great, so we'll take a vote. Member Del Gavio. Member Taft. Green. Member Middellman. The green. Vice Chair Conmer. Great, so just to clarify for everybody, the application was continued. We'll work with the applicant to show additional information. We may set up a site visit with staff to go verify the condition. And we will get this back on agenda as soon as possible. That concludes this item. Zero director's report. No, there's no directors reports. The only thing that I will communicate is at the last town council meeting, I mean, they've been aware that the town council did provide a discussion about the ASRB. There was no decision made. It was a study session. There wasn't any firm clarity that anyone wanted to get rid of the ASRB. There was some comments on question about if there are certain items that maybe you could go to the staff level or to the Planning Commission for review, but to go back to the town council at some point further discussed if there's, you know, what items the ASRB, it may not be necessary to review, I guess, in some cases. That's what they were looking for. So when that comes back to the town council, I'll make sure you guys are aware of that. On May 6th at 10-6th. Thank you.