I'm going to go to the town council meeting of March 11, 2025. Jennifer, will you take roll? Councilmember Upper each. Here. Councilmember Brown. Here. Councilmember Gold. Councilmember Paul. Mayor Domkowski. Here. Councilmember Wall. Will you lead us in the Pledge allegiance Allegiance should apply Indivisible Liberty and justice for all Thank you very much We'll open up public comments. So persons wishing to address council on any matter not on the Posted agenda are invited to do so today. Please note that we can't undertake extended discussions or act on Non agendized items. Of course, can be referred to staff for further follow-up. This communication period is limited to five persons, three minutes each. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak on a matter not on the agenda tonight? And let me just check Zoom. It doesn't anyone in the Zoom room? Okay. Well, then I think we'll close public. Oh, hi, David. Would you like to make a public comment on something not on the agenda tonight? Or you want to wait, okay great. Sorry sorry for my time this thing is the same. It's perfect timing. David, the middleman, tomato, and the gradient. I just want to take a moment to public comment, it's actually thank Kevin. I saw that you guys have interviewed scheduled next week. And I was in town, all yesterday. And I think I can directly contribute my civic engagement to his open door policy and being willing to take the time to answer any question I might have. That's really kind of you. Thank you, Mr. Middleton. And of course, we share your sentiment. We will miss him, but we're going to keep working him until his last day here. So, and I think with that, what a perfect lead in will close public comment and go straight to the town manager's report, Kevin. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. David, thanks. I'm glad you made it just in time for you. Yeah. We didn't plan that at all. I should say that. Just a couple things I wanted to mention on the time and report both fire safety related. Number one, I don't know that I mentioned this last time, but you recall we have a FEMA hazard mitigation grant. We applied for I forget how many years ago, but it is now that project is now underway in in town. So at long last, we are spending that money that we were awarded several years ago. That's all for hazard tree removal in town, right away, primarily like Eucalyptus trees, but you will see that in various areas of town. Second was just an update on the very high fire hazard severity maps. I've been telling you that those are that process is coming an under way and we conferred with both the town of Porto Valley and the attorneys for the two towns and the fire district and determine that what the law requires and what we will do. is that the fire district as the fire agency will adopt the map and they are planning to do that, they're planning to introduce it on March 25th, two weeks from tonight and adopt it a month later. The action that the town will take after that will be ratification as we would do with their fire code. And they have indicated, we will track this, but they've indicated that they make no, they're not planning to make any modifications to the map. They will adopt it as it was released by Cal Fire. That's what I've got for this evening. Great. Any questions from council first? We'll get to, we'll get to the public. Yes. Yes, I guess this is for Kevin. And we get a recap of revenues, expenses, and headcount going back to pre-COVID year by year, like for calendar year. I just want to get a sense of perspective of where we've been, where we are, because we're going to be talking about where we want to go and where are we. How would we get there? I'm going forward and usually I'm concerned about our building to pay for where we want to go. Yeah. Yes, I can I can certainly provide that at an upcoming meeting. Um, by off the top of my head, I think headcount is very stable. I think we've added one position in five years. Um, and revenue is expenses have both behead that we had the dip that everyone had related to COVID but I can I can certainly pull that together good good thank you any other questions click follow what is the size of that theme of grant for tree removal our contract amount came in under unfortunately came in under worth the grant amount was for, but we'll be spending. I want to say, unless you know the number of top your head better than I do. I was going to say, I want to say it's about a $300,000 federal grant supporting about $400,000 with the work. grant was for was for $660, but unfortunately our bids came in better than expected and FEMA wouldn't allow us to add additional work. Did you saw you? No? Any comments from the public? Mr. Burrow. Thank you Dave Burrow 135 shared in way and regarding the the high district the fire maps, right? So if I recall back to when the fire district presented to us they basically said that they were implementing the their programs in terms of fuel reduction and fire safety without regard to the Cal Fire maps. Or as they were treating everything in their districts as being high fire, that was the statement I believe that the Fire Marshal made before us here. And I've also been to other, I've actually attended some of the fire district meetings and I think she made the same statements. And so the question is, if they're going to adopt the Cal Fire maps, does that have any impact on the programs that they're doing in terms of getting us to implement. You know, the things they're doing, nothing within five foot, no fences touching the buildings. and so forth and so on. So I just put like that ask Kevin if he knows the answer that. Yeah, I think it's my understanding is the same. I think that the the ordinance they adopted, they were applying townwide or district wide, including the town. And the areas that are very high fire and where that in particular to the one I'm aware of is that zero to five feet, the non-combustible separation. The requirement of the law is that would apply to the very high and not necessarily others, but local jurisdictions are welcome to apply that. Or welcome to apply that or can't apply that district why beyond that boundary. I believe that's correct. That's one of the things we'll clarify. So they're going to adopt the map, but they're not going to change their program. I have not heard indication that it's. I'm just wondering it seems odd that they would adopt the map that's sort of in conflict with what they're trying to do. And before they said, we don't care about the map, we have under one of the two state laws, under one of the laws, they said the higher fire district carriages and had had meaning and under another state law, it didn't have meaning and so they could do what they wanted. So yeah, the map, they don't have a, they don't have a choice in adopting the map, that their adoption of the map is required by law. Okay, I'm not sure that that's the question. No, it just was when I read it in the paper, it was confused right does this mean there's any changes coming and it would be good if somebody could ask the fire district to. You know, at least clarify that for all of us. Yeah, it's a we will do that and also it looks like it's probably coming before council the second half of the day. Thank you. Certainly. Look at category categories and whether they impact policy. Any other comments on? On manager report. All right, I think we'll close that down and we will move to the hotly contested consent agenda. So all items on the consent agenda are considered routine and will be approved by one roll call motion unless request is made. poll an item or transfer to regular agenda. Are there any items on the agenda that any council members would like to poll? Item three. Three. Then mention three and six. Three and seven four Right, can we get a motion for one two and Move we pull one two and five or Pro. Proof. Yes. Second. All right. Council member Abarish. Yes. Council member Brown. Yes. Council member Gold. Yes. Council member Wall. Mayor Dom Kowski. Yes. And we'll go in order. So to you, council member Abarish on point three. I just drew a demand. No, I'm sorry. Scheduled. That's how we're a failure. Yeah. So I had a question. It looks like we're going to bring back a position. And so I wasn't, wasn't clear to me if that was creating a brand new position. And then so would we, it looks like somebody would be promoted to that position. And then would we fill the open spot? No. Okay. It's really a risk. It's a reclassification for the incumbent, an admin assistant in, planning department who is doing work over deputy town clerk. If you look back, I don't know how many years, Jen. If you go back 10 years, Generally, he was in the same position. Chiefs served as deputy town clerk. If you look back, I don't know how many years, Jen, if you go back 10 years, generally, he was in the same position. Chiefs served as deputy town clerk in the planning department. So it's, it's a, yeah, it's reestablishing a position that we once had and moving, moving the admin assistant to that position. Okay, and who can I ask who is the current? Oh, yeah, it's Julie Paping. Okay, who has been an outstanding, she's been an outstanding since her arrival here. That's all I have. Yes, great. So first of all, congratulations to Julie. I think that's very exciting. When I was reading through this consent calendar item, a couple questions came to mind. And I know Kevin and you and I were discussing this a bit earlier. So I just wanted to maybe ask the same questions I was asking you before, which was I had the same reaction that has sounded. I was like, oh, this doesn't actually say it's a promotion, but it sure sounds like a promotion. And then that got me thinking, okay, actually not really aware of like what our town's promotion process is. And I'm also not aware of what our review process is and how that works now is wondering if that's written down anywhere. So those are the questions I was asking you earlier. Maybe you could share kind of what you have already told me and then I might have some follow up questions. Sure. Sure. So the the end review process is it comes out of our personnel manual so that everyone gets a review from their supervisor or their manager. Once a year, typically on their anniversary date. As far as promotions go, it's, it's really for those, we, for people who are either kind of growing beyond their, one of the nice things about being a small organization is we can be nimble. So when there are employees that are really high performers and one of the tools that we may have to keep them and keep them engaged is to try to build in or try to create emotional opportunities. There are some positions like in the engineer class and the planner class where there are classifications that allow for that. There are others like this one where if we had kept the deputy town clerk position in the budget, we could have just done that, but because it had fallen off that during one budget cycle, we wanted to add it back to allow this opportunity. So it So it sounds like the the annual review process is described in, so it's a personnel manual. It's called for in the personnel manual. So what's it called? No, it's called for it's not. I don't think there's much of a description of it. Okay. And then is the promotion process. Those of you guys kind of follow a process, but is that written down anywhere? That is. There is a if we had a, I can't think of an example where we've done this, but if we had a need, or not recently, if we had an opening and somebody could, if we had an opening that was available to the universe, we, we would allow for people to apply for promotions, but otherwise it's, again, it's merit based on performance of individuals. Either through their annual view process or again, because we're not limited to that, we can do that when it makes sense for the organizational recognizes the work that is being done as in this case. Okay. Where I'm kind of going with this is, I'm sort of approaching this with two lenses. So I come out a little bit from my, in my professional capacity where we have like a huge organization and very formal written down review cycles and how to approach that and promotion cycles and that certainly wouldn't be like the right fit for a much smaller theme like we have here at the town of Woodside. But I do wonder maybe for a couple of reasons one with a Kevin departing in a couple months like seems like it might be a good time for one for you to kind of work to do with the community. We're going to be able to have a lot of work to do with the community. We're going to be able to have a lot of work to do with the community. We're going to be able to have a lot of work to do with the community. We're going to be able to have a lot of work to do with the community. in more process in place. And maybe we walk away and say, no, we don't want to add process. But. how we think about promotion, whether or not we might want to put more details in more process in place. Maybe we walk away and say no, we don't want to add process, but I was thinking it might be an interesting topic for a study session or for us to look at in some other way. I will offer that we are working on Jean's office and staff are working on an update to the personnel policy. So, should Wismarrier that some of that maybe all of that would be included in that. So there would be an opportunity when that comes before council to discuss that as well. Well, I think we have to either give direction now. So in connection with that personnel manual update to include information around the review process and the promotion process. We could give that direction. Or we could. Give the direction to bring it back as a study session. I think those are maybe there's other options, but those are the two options I see my mind. What's the timeline for making that change? Because if it goes past Kevin's last day, I'll raise this with success. Okay. I would say near near term. Sounds like it's getting near being ready. So like in the next, I've been saying the next three months. Okay, so so we're, we're grouping the staff direction to include details or what's the no, I'm not making any motion. I personally feel that that's really handled by professionals. I think that branch is very interesting. So I was just thinking that perhaps if it just comes before us as normal course of business, we can we can review it and then maybe make iterations on it. I think the new town manager is gonna have his own or her own overview as well, right, in terms of what they wanna do. But I agree with you that structure and process is important and having a culture that rewards people with normal promotions and all sorts of things and recognition is all very important. So I totally get where you're coming from. I think maybe just, it might be more efficient to have it come before us have us us be able to comment and give direction at the time of, instead of doing a study session with a really broad sort of mandate. Yeah, no, I like that. So, just so I'm clear that the changes to the personnel manual would be brought to counsel via consent calendar item. Is that how it would work? Not necessarily. We could agenda as a discussion item. Okay Okay and you know bonus points of it includes details on. Have you cycles and promotion classes? Okay I think we're going to take we got to take these approved each each at one time so you want to make a motion for number three. Yeah I haven't done this before. I'd like to make a motion modifying the 2024 25 down salary schedule and classification plan. I second. Council member upper each. Yes. Council member Brown. Yes. Council member Gold. Council member wall. Yes. Mayor Dom Kowski. Yes. We need a second motion. We are going to move on to number four now in the audit. What do you mean a second motion? So there's a second page that it looks like a set. No, that's good. Okay. That was in clear. Yeah. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem Gold. agenda item four. This is the acceptance of the audited financial statements and I just wanted to make a comment before I turn it over to the audit committee for any comments that they might have I think they do. The mayor and I have been on the audit committee for seems like an eternity, but it's only been a few years I think, as long as I've been here. And we are really fortunate in this town to have an audit committee that's comprised of three individuals who have really incredible resumes in finance, including former CFOs, CEOs, very high level. And even more than that, they're really engaged in the audit process. This is not a casual committee that shows up and rubber stamps, anything that's done. They are involved in quite literally every word and comma that's in that audit report. And I really thank them for that. The audit committee for those of you who don't know is a completely independent one of the only is the only completely independent committee advisory committee to the town council. We don't even select the membership. That's how independent they are. They select their own. And so we have no, you know, they give a report back there. These are completely arms length meetings where they make independent assessments and report back independently to the town and the town council of their findings from the audit that's done in this case by Mason Associates are accounting firm. But I just before I turned it over to the audit committee, I just wanted to thank them for their work. They are absolutely incredible and do a a job that we don't have a budget in this town big enough if we had to pay them there. Their hourly rates would bankrupt the town very quickly. And I just wanted to thank them for their work. And for the amount of effort that they put into this, they take their job very seriously. Attached as part of item four is, I think it's 168 page audit report, and I can assure you that they went through every page and every word and checked every figure that's in there, which by the way, I'm not so sure they should be doing that, but I thank them for doing it. And there's actually been some subsequent correspondence between the audit committee, the mayor and I, as members of the committee. There are liaison to that committee for future, for how this process might improve and we take those to heart as well. So with that, turn it back over to the mayor, but I think the audit committee wishes to make a report. Thank you for that. And I will certainly second those sentiments in a moment, but may I recognize chair Eichler to report on the town's audited financials. For those of you who don't know me, my name is Dave Eichler. I'm Chair of the Auto Committee. This is my six year on the committee. We have two other members, Dave Barrow, former Council Member, and Ron Carpogic, who's been on the committee for three years. I would like to thank Brian and Paul for acting as laya's on with the town council. We appreciate your support. Each of you should have received a copy of the audited fiscal 24 financial statements, which include the independent auditors report, footnotes, supplemental schedules, and the management discussion and analysis section. Our committee has reviewed and discussed the fiscal year 24 audit, including the audited financial statements and report with maize and associates and with staff personnel. If you haven't had a chance to review this lengthy document, I would like to call your attention to the independent auditors report on page one. In the auditors report on page one, includes an unqualified or clean opinion stating that the financial statements, including related footnote disclosures, where the period ending June 30th, 2024 in their opinion, present fairly in all material respects, the financial position of the town and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and government auditing standards. So this is actually exceptionally good, better than having a qualified opinion. So the audit is separately reported to the audit committee that there were no material misstatements in the financial statements or whether any disagreements with management regarding accounting or disagreements on disclosure items or there were any material weaknesses in internal control during the audit. In summary, the audit committee has approved the fiscal 24 financial statements as presented and recommends the town council to the same. I know Cindy's safe isn't here tonight. I'd like to thank her and her staff for successfully competing the audit and for assisting in preparing their financial report. So with that, if there's any questions or comments, please far away. That's thank you, Dave. And by the way, Cindy is in the Zoom room. One question for you are, are future sort of largest liability we have as our pension liability? And obviously we aren't alone in this and we've also taken steps to sort of rise up to the challenge in some ways in terms of excess funds that we've year marked if you will or put aside for this process. Do you have a professional opinion or any sort of detail you can share with us in terms of our position there relative to that future obligation. And whether maybe we should be thinking about showing it up more or whether we're in an R.I. place in your mind based on your professional background. Let me try to summarize a somewhat complex issue, as best I may. There is disclosure of the report on page six in the management discussion and analysis section and also in footnote two on page 70 under cash investments, which talks about the the PERS account that the town set up back in 2020. And I think everybody knows, CalPERS manages the pension assets for the town of Woodside, like they do other municipalities in the state. And they also administer the plan, which means they provide us an actual report once a year. Typically, get that stated. I think the first of July and we use that report basically for a couple of reasons. One, they provide us with our contribution number for the subsequent period based on the expected benefit payments. And also part of that money is used to help fund the unfunded pension liability. So unfortunately there's a lag in getting this information from the state because there's a time delay from when they do their actual reporting until they do their measurement until they report to us. So there's there's a little bit of a lag until, you know, we get the information. But based on the most recent valuation report, we received as July 1st, 2024, in that report, based on the actual analysis that was done by CalPERS, it says that the Town Pension Liability was 71% funded. With an unfunded liability of about $5.2 million. Some of you, I'm sure, remember when this was set up back in 2020, the town decided, the town council made a decision to participate in, they called a public agency retirement service pension stabilization program. And part of that, the town set up a irrevocable trust. And then that this was outside of CalPERS. In that trust, they contributed, I think, about $2 million. And this money is restricted. And it's on our balance sheet as restricted cash. So it's earmarked for basically future pension contributions if if the town council decides to do that or obviously help address the unfunded pension liability. As I mentioned to you earlier the latest valuation report indicates that the town's unfunded, the ratio of their funded pension assets to the estimated pension obligation is about 71%. the $5 to $2.7 million that's sitting in this parse account, if that were used to contribute to the pension obligation that would raise the funded percentage up to 85%. And that money that's in that revocable trust account is managed by a third party. And that money is invested in stocks and bonds. And the last year I think we had, you know, at fiscal 24, I think that the town had about a $260,000 increase in market value in that trust account. So in summary, the latest value issue report from the state indicates there's about a 5.6 million unfunded liability. If you were to take the money that's in that restricted fund outside of CalPERS and apply that to the unfunded liability, you would bring that number down to about $3 million. My experience is that most companies have unfunded pension liabilities to some extent. I think what Cindy told me, Cindy said. She says that CalPERS tries to target about a 70% funded ratio with their pension plans. Okay, so I'm sure that's helpful or not? Yeah, very helpful. So a relative position of strength. Would you? Okay, that's all right. I mean, 100% is better I think I think if you probably did a might might be useful to benchmark other other municipalities to see what's their funding ratio. Right, that would be good. We don't want to move towards the lowest common denominator either. But okay, so 3 million shy right now. 3 million shy. Okay. And then the retire retiree health benefit program. There's about a $1.3 million set aside in a separateERS account. And that basically has reduced the unfunded liability down to about $1.2, $1.3 million as of June 24. It says about a 55% coverage in the unfunded amount. Okay. Great. Thank you. Any other questions for Dave? Any questions from the public? Then maybe I'll just reiterate councilmember Gold's comments and thank you for your amazing leadership. And of course, Mr. Burrow and Mr. Carpovich for really your collective commitment to some extraordinarily meticulous work on our behalf. I think Paul said it right. I mean, effectively, as I've said to you before, you are our Supreme Court appointed for life and really an equal partner in governance in terms of our checks and balances and so thank you for everything you guys do. It is remarkable work we have filled with gratitude for everything you bring to the town so thank you. And now you got some applause. You should thank you for serving on the town council for your time and dedication as well. So thank you. As always, gracious. Thank you, Mr. Eichler. I think with that, would you like to make a motion for four? I will. One final word I just wanted to thank the staff and Cindy, say for especially for their cooperation and Kevin, I think the level of cooperation is greatly appreciated. Yeah, and I mean, at this point, with all the years we've been doing this, this is Cindy's show and she runs it very well. So all credit, and I know she's online, you could hear this, but she deserves the accolade. Promise Cindy a cocktail after this. She's paid her dues during this process. She always does, and she does a great job. That's a great job. So I just move for approval of, I guess, into the record of item four. And I'll break protocol in second that just as the liaison. Council member Abarish. Yes. Council member Brown. Yes. Council member Gold. Council member Wal. Yes. are downcowski. Yes, and item seven counts. Remember well. All right. Um, so maybe a question for staff might take away. Take away, correct me if I'm wrong, is that we're making decent progress towards our housing element goals for this current cycle. I was hoping you could maybe just quickly describe the housing element goals for this current cycle. I was hoping you could maybe just quickly describe the housing element next steps. Like what is the punch list over the next foreseeable future on things that we'll be doing towards housing element compliance? So the longer list has all of our programs outlined and that's kind of the list will be working off. But some of the highlights that will be in the upcoming year or two here will really be focused on determining trying to get a partner to develop the town on science for multifamily housing. I'll probably be one of the biggest items that need to be worked on with the housing element programs. Otherwise, there's a lot more outreach to complete. We're continually updating our ADU ordinances, as well as providing more information to the public. The town is also part of a newly created ADU resource center for San Mateo County. And they will continually, they just got up and running last year, so they are also continuing to provide more resources for the town. But again, just to highlight the big items will be the town looking at partnering with a development, whether it's a non a nonprofit or for-profit development company to look at the potential multifamily housing on the two town on sites. Great, great one-fault question. I know Brian, you attended a school board meeting, I believe it was, for which I heard great feedback. And I think that group really appreciated your presence and your explanation of the housing element. I know from a follow-up conversation I had with one of the school board members that they are, I think, working with the foundation or asking the foundation to look into whether or not the school or the foundation might have some interest and ability to engage in perhaps making one of those developments focused on teacher housing. So maybe making this a question, is the partner that we would be looking to engage with? Would that by its nature be a partner who could do any sort of affordable housing development? Like, I would hate to foreclose the option of doing say teacher housing, I virtue of partnering with a counter party that wouldn't be able to do that. So maybe you could just explain a little bit how that will work. Yeah, no. The decision would come through the town council. So the town would need to put out a request for proposals and in doing so we'd probably do something similar that we're doing with the town center plan. Develop an RFP, something for the town council to review. And then that would start to structure what we are looking for from our partner. And I think that would be the important place for those details to be provided. Do you have any estimated timeframe for when that RFE will go out? Definitely, by the end of the year, we'll want to work with the NewTown Manager and even something that as early as this summer could be potential. Okay, and that timeframe has been developed. I imagine, this is probably not even worth asking, but that timeline has been developed with compliance with the housing element. That's correct, yes, it has timelines of the house element. Okay, great. All right. Thank you. Yeah, I have a question. Have we, have we done any conversations with the New York College about where's their thinking in their development process, bring 75 units online before we, we don't have any specific update at this time. I have, Kevin's got me touch with the person over there and I'm gonna be continuing those conversations. Yeah, it is part of this report. And our program calls for checking in at least twice a year. This program was reason to reach out to our contact. And they're still focused at their project on, all of the San Mate Mateo. So no developments from the college. And the other question is, have we had any conversation to lock down exactly what would be in tail if we have to take efforts to bring sewer into running need, or if we end or if we have to build a second emergency access. We had any conversation with anybody about what's required to do then, what it might cost? Well, we have, I mean, the sewer, as we've indicated, it's, it's town center sewer extension, so it would be our own sewer, but we are in contact with the county about what's coming and what the capacity is. And we are talking, we have started the conversation and the fire district is very tuned into the issue at the Ramunda site. And without, again, without any real development proposals, we've started to talk about what some enhancements in that area might look like. Give any timeline in mind of when you'd like to resolve what we have to or don't have to do like three months from now six months from now you're from now what are we talking about here. I think that's I think that's all as we develop as the RFP has developed. All to be developed. Yes. Okay. I just wanted to ask the planning director. I just want to make sure I understand the chart, the table correctly. So the top line number that we've been given for our target number was 328 units. We're one fourth of the way through the eight year cycle, or two years into an eight year cycle. So we should be at approximately 81, if I did my math correctly. And we're currently at 74, which is actually a surprising, the number we're pretty close to where we should be, we're right at about par. And we remain 250 for the remaining six years to reach our number of 328. That's correct. And the one thing I always want to point out with the House and element and at the front end it's likely to have lower numbers than as we start to get all of these programs up to speed especially as we start to hopefully be able to develop the multifamily housing that will really bring those numbers up much higher. So I anticipate towards the tail end of the cycle for our annual numbers to increase. Thank you. And just to state the obvious, we picked up a six month grace period at the start of the cycle. In terms of permitted, right? So the actual run rate might be a little lighter than we would like. That's right. Yes. The first six months of the cycle were not in 2023. Right. But still encouraging before we've done any. Pleasant. We surprised. We definitely have an encouraging rate with our ADU We have a lot of work to do with the community. We have a lot of work to do with the community. We have a lot of work to do with the community. We have a lot of work to do with the community. We have a lot of work to do with the community. We have a lot of work to do the multifamily housing need to be in order to account in this cycle versus going over to the next cycle? I think we count permitting, but let me hand that off to you, Sage. I'm sorry, yeah, if the question is what counts, yes, you count permits issued. Several years ago, they used to count permits final, but before this cycle they have changed that to permits issued and that has been clarified for us. Thank you so we can get canyada corners to at least get permitted. Okay. All right I will move to approve consent calendar item seven. Before you call the role on that, did we also, did we skip over six or was that in the original motion? That changed seven. Seven. Oh, I didn't put that up. The question is, did you approve it? Call for six. Yeah, we have to go back. Sorry, elementary, but we're going to do six and seven starting with seven. Well, how long I just make a motion to approve six and seven? Commitment to efficiency is risk, just highly respected. Thank you. All right, six and seven. We have a motion. Thank you. I can. Council member. Yes. Council member Brown. Yes. member Gold, that's member Wall, Mayor Dom Kelski. Yes councilmember Brown. Yes councilmember Gold. Yes, we are down Kowski. Yes. Thank you and we are finally through the consent agenda. Highly engaged council. So moving right along to new business A public hearing on the conversion of Barnes to 80 use and and I'm handing this off to Melanie? I'll give a brief introduction. I'll give Melanie will take care of the details. Okay. So thank you very much, Mayor and Council members. This is a draft ordinance just to give a little bit of background. June of last year, the Planning Commission provided a study session to look at various ways to relax or introduce new ADU regulations that would help increase the production of ADUs. And a couple of those topics were looking at the conversion of barns to ADUs as well as looking at the height requirements for ADUs and determining if there are certain circumstances in which those height limits should be modified. As most of us are aware, there are new state laws seem to take almost every year now that are increasing, providing more flexibility for ADU construction on lots. The couple items that I'll highlight for state law that are applicable to tonight's draft ordinance are the HCD interprets the current state law in that local jurisdictions shall approve the conversion of any existing accessory structure. and so allowing the full conversion of barns would be in line with that interpretation from HCD, as well as the state law does indicate that local jurisdictions must approve one new detached accessory dwelling unit up to 800 square feet that can be as close as 4 feet to the side and rear property lines. It also stipulates that that unit should be allowed to be up to 16 feet tall. The state law is interpreted to suggest that you cannot impose any other objective standards to that specific type of unit. So if this unit is 800 square feet, can be as close as 4 feet to a side of rear property line, we cannot impose an objective standard such as plate height requirements. So whereas in this particular type of unit, staff is looking at changing the modifications to allow for that unit to be up to 16 feet tall without plate high limitations. Whereas units larger than that are not completely fit into this little box that is outlined in the state law. Those can continue to have other objective standards such as our current plate regulations. So this proposal tonight is just to align with state law as well as provide more flexibility by removing barriers and which will help increase our ADU production. But with that, I'll hand it off to Melanie and she can go through the details. Hello and thank you council members. I'm Melanie Olson associate planner and I will be presenting tonight's review of the ADU ordinance. The change is pertaining to barn conversions and ADU height limitations. So tonight we will be reviewing, oh, well, aside from that, we have two desk items for this item that we received. One is from a resident in support of the proposed changes and suggesting further modifications to allow floor area for aduse. And another is from a resident in support of the proposed barn changes. Tonight we'll be reviewing proposed municipal code changes pertaining to chapter 153 of the zoning code in regard to barns and stables converted to ADUs, ADU height and plate height limits specifically for ADUs on down sloping hillside lots, ADUs and Shed roofs, ADUs that are 800 square feet or less and ADUs above garages. The proposed ordinance would allow the full conversion of one existing barn or stable that exceeds typical accessory structure standards, which means the structures greater than 1500 square feet with 11 foot plate heights and 17 feet overall building height into one or more eight use. This conversion would allow, would require the structure not to be altered, including its location, heights in size, and to incorporate objective design standards that would maintain its equestrian and rural integrity. The town is also recommending to amend barns within 80s since barns can be up to 3000 square feet in some zoning districts. It makes sense to remove the limit of the 80 to 1200 square feet, but maintain that the 80 can be 50% of the barns footprint since we currently allow 80s to be 1500 square feet. Next, we'll be evaluating the proposed changes to the municipal code regarding building heights and plate heights in regard to ADUs on downsloping hillside lots, ADUs in shed roofs, and ADUs that are 800 square feet or less. for ADUs on down sloping hillside lots, it is recognized that it's difficult to particularly construct single-level ADUs on hillside lots. Therefore, staff has proposed ordinance changes to allow the downward slope side of the ADU to exceed 11 foot plate heights and 17 overall height. So long as the overall height on the downslope side does not exceed 28 feet tall and the upslope side of the ADU meets the standard 11 feet plate heights and 17 feet overall building height. So if we're looking at this example here, the downsloping side is here with the red line on the right. So the plate height typically is where the eave meets the exterior building wall. So this side on the up slope side would be still need to maintain the 11 foot and then the overall height on that side would need to maintain 17. then then it can be taller on the downsloping site. This exception would be allowed for proposed ADUs on lot areas that have an average slope of about 15% or greater. Next, we have the plate height exceptions for Shadroofed 80s that are being proposed since this is a popular architectural style among stick build as well as prefab 80s. The definition of a shed roof is proposed in the code changes also to make it clear that this is for a single pitch building roof that slopes downward in a single direction with a minimum pitch of 2 by 12, which is shown in the example. The code amendment would allow this roof style to have one side of the ADU have a 14 foot plate height. So long as the shorter side does not exceed the 11 foot plate heights and this structure would also need to meet the basic setbacks for the zoning district. The proposed municipal code changes also include the allowance of one ADU per property that is 800 square feet or less. I would not require plate heights for these smaller units. So long as the building height does not exceed 16 feet tall. And lastly, ADUs above garages, they've been allowed in woodside, but not specifically in the ADUs section of the municipal code. These units would be allowed to have 12 foot plate heights and 18 feet overall. While meeting the basic setbacks of the zoning district. Any taller would increase the setbacks to feet for one foot over 12 or 18 feet tall. Which means that the taller the. The structure gets the increase the larger the setback will get. And it would be allowed to be up to 24 feet tall for its overall building height. That concludes my presentation. Staff is happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Dr. Bill, thank you, Melanie and Sage. Questions for staff. Yes. Yeah, have we had any conversations with anybody about the possibility of like three or four studio size departments built within a barn structure a 350 feet via a square feet or studio apartment you put three or four of them inside a barn of somebody would be so inclined. Would that all apply toward our? So it's definitely something we thought about. And the way the draft ordinance is written, it would not prohibit somebody from having more than one of the units inside of the converted barn space. So they could take their existing space. And properties are allowed to start in a maximum number of ADUs, sum up to 4 ADUs. So potentially one could conceive of converting a barn into 3 ADUs if they didn't have a month elsewhere on the property. So this code would not prohibit that. It would just allow the conversion, whether they want to make it or two, or three up to the maximum they're allowed for the profit. That's great. The other question is, what, if any plans that we put in place to probably to encourage more, I say, so I say barn building in the community, because we're actually diminishing our barn inventory in a whole equestrian inventory is shrinking. And I hate to see us encouraging converting uses that we'd like to maybe retain or equestrian purposes as well. It's a good question and something we thought long and hard about. You know, we ended up in the position where, you know, a barn that's not being used for livestock could just sit there. And if it has to be used for livestock, that owner has no intention to do so, but may have the ability and willingness to turn into an 80 you. We found that to be a positive thing. Whereas it still wouldn't prohibit that owner or future owner from developing other livestock facilities on the site. So whereas yes, it would take away an immediate structure when prohibit the construction of equestrian sites, wouldn't prohibit a future owner from converting that back into a barn if they didn't want to build a new one. But I do know last I was informed is that the livestock committee is aware of this issue we've kept engaged with them. I've met on at least two or three occasions with some individuals from the livestock committee about this ordinance. And I know that they are interested in looking at definitions and other things that might help facilitate or encourage other types of stable construction in town. So I personally will be meeting with the livestock committee at some point as they've gathered some ideas that they'd like to pursue. Thank you. I wanted to follow up on a question that was raised by resident Steve Patrick. He sent in one of the desk items and he was wondering if we should, if it would be appropriate to allow for property zoned in the SCP district to be allowed to increase the total floor area and accordance with the area of the ADU added up to 800 square feet or 1500 square feet. Sage, I know you and I chatted about this briefly, but if you could maybe, first of all, maybe demystify his questions. I think there's some terms in there and some concepts that it would be useful for you to kind of explain. And then if you could let me know what your answer is to his question. So currently the code indicates that the first 800 square feet of A to use on the property. Does not count against your total floor area allowed. So there's essentially everyone gets at least 800 square square feet to put an ADU on the property, even if they were maxed out otherwise. And that not only applies to the total floor area, but also to your maximum residence size. And so the question that was raised by Mr. Patrick is my understanding is that could you increase that exception allowance? So could you increase that from 800 square feet to say 1500 square feet or some other square footage number? Now with some properties allowed you know up to 480 use does the town want to consider expanding that exemption which we haven't seen it to be a significant barrier for folks so it's not something that we'd say has a high pressing item, but it would just be another tool that could allow for more flexibility and the increase in production of ADUs. So from a planning perspective, staff has no opposition or significant issues. I mean, it just means properties can have more square footage, but it be dedicated to ADU uses. So from that angle, a staff does not have a problem with increasing the square footage, it would be a discussion and direction by town council. With that said, tonight's ordinance was not noticed, not publicly noticed for that type of change. And whereas we do have a lot of interest in getting the barn conversions going from the community. We have had this come up from members of the public from time of time, although it's not a significant barrier. So we look to is if the council wants to give us any direction on that item and we would bring it back with our next upcoming ADU ordinance. next upcoming ADU ordinance. We still have other ideas we're working on, no such as second driveway exceptions and should there be more flexibility on sites that have trouble from placing an ADU without a second driveway. So there's other things we still want to bring back to the Planning Commission and Council and we could wrap this into as well. Okay, quick, thank you, Sage. Click follow a question. He's indicating allowing this in properties zoned in the SCP district. I don't actually know off top of what SCP district is, but would you say this is something we would do just in that district? Or would your recommendation be to do it townwide? I think it'd be worth looking at all the districts. So the SCP is a special conservation planning district is what it stands for. And we have SCP-5, SCP-7.5, and SCP-10, and those numbers relate to the minimum lot size for those particular areas. When this was set up, I think back in the late 80s, early 90s, the idea was that when sites have certain environmental constraints such as a high fire area,, maybe a creek, fault line, landslide areas, the more potential constraints they had on the property, the larger the minimum lot size was supposed to be. So that's just to explain the SCP districts, but I would encourage you to look at all of the districts townwide because no more ADU production could also occur and maybe sometimes more easily in areas that do not have those environmental constraints. Thank you. Other questions for me? Oh, my go right up. I mean, I had the same set of questions. I think I don't wanna, I'm sure it looks like Steve's online so you can speak for himself, but because it's because the topography issues, I mean this is basically Western hills, it's council member aberration, myself districts. That we, it's hard to find sites and so if you can find a site, maybe you'd be okay to make that site a little bit bigger, if you will, in order to. So I think there's a fundamental reason why it's being pushed for a certain area. But yeah, and I would just second I would be interested in also joining in direction to bring that back on another ordinance. I know we can't do it tonight. Yeah, sorry. I only want thing to add what you just said agreed it's Western Hills. I think I think it actually is pretty relevant for district one in the glens as well. So I don't want to leave them out. Well we all fight for our people. Other questions for staff? I wanted to ask Melanie a question about the other desk item that came from Ms. Resetto about this was the 2000 square feet where limited. And is there, does this address her concern? I just don't, it's hard for me to. Understand the, uh, this particular point and I was wondering if you. At any comment on it. Yeah, uh, this would, this would address that concern. Could she be able to convert the 2000 square foot barn regardless of its plate heights or if it's got a single story or second story so this would this would have. Yeah. Okay. Good. Thank you. I wanted to just make sure. Thank you. Maybe I had the same question, but I think maybe. I don't know, I might be confused. So she says that the existing law says that she believes that the existing law says that she believes that the existing law and existing 3,000 square foot barn converted to an ADU would not be subject to the local unit size requirements regardless of whether local government has adopted an ADU ordinance. I thought that so is there no limitation? If there's a 3000 square foot barn, and they want somebody, the owner wants to convert it to all of it to ADU, is there, and there's under this proposal, it would be limited, isn't that right? No, under the current proposal, no, but with the existing proposal, which is what I believe she's referring to. Yeah, it would be difficult. Under the current code language, it's something that is not allowed. And so what this draft ordinance is doing is coming in line with HCD's interpretation of the state law and therefore it would be allowed. So, the arons of any size could be converted into a singular ADU, even if they're larger than 1500 square feet. Okay, thank you both. Thank you. All right, I think we can close questions from the council. We'll open up public comment. Any members of the public that want to speak on item a. Yeah, item a the barn 80 you can. Would you like the microphones? I know you'd have well, culminate here. I'm worried about the streets where building all these things here, 300 and how many new buildings and then cars and streets. And we have the same streets. Is there any plan at all about, you can't, I don't think you can widen our streets going through the town. And then, is there any thought of that? It's gonna be kind of ugly, I think. Yeah, it's a good question, right? Which is do all this building, but here's no funding for infrastructure to support the building. Yes, or Kevin, I think one of you wanna comment on future road plans and infrastructure plans to support density, I don't know if we've really had that discussion because it's kind of project dependent and right now it's been sort of a run rate situations we just saw from consent agenda we haven't gotten into a place and some of the density is going of course in in areas that are freeway accessible or state highway accessible etc so it's there is infrastructure where there's density for the most, not completely. Error summary. If you're kind of summed it up, okay. I mean, the one, the one point that I would make though is that, and why we've always leaned into the ADU strategy or one of the reasons is that it does tend to spread out. And so it's not, you don't get the concentration. So, I mean, that, you're absolutely right. And Leanne's absolutely right, and you're absolutely right. That we're not getting money to provide roads, and I'm not sure that it's one of those things I don't think the scale of development, even two cycles in, or would warrant, say, making mountain Home Road a radically different roadway is my impression. And another thing is, is what about all the ADUs? What are they doing as far as sewage? I mean, what is it? And where's it going? And are we equipped to take all that? So that's that's the other fundamental problem, right? So this was with all due respect, with a bit of a cookie cutter program where we were allocated and nobody said, hey, by the way, there's very high fire zones where there's limited infrastructure, only a third of the town has sewer and so forth. So we really can't put density where we have septic systems. So that got to the issue which none of us are thrilled about, but it's just the outcome we had to put density plan for density where there is infrastructure where there is sewer and that would a lot of density really in one square mile of town. which isn't ideal, but the density as planned for is largely sewer or sewer adjacent. There's one property that is currently not sewer adjacent and would require, and this is the remundo property that was mentioned earlier. I think we cost it out at three or four million dollars to bring sewer to that property should be developed. But outside of that, those properties do have sewer. Those properties are largely positioned in places that have access to roads that are fairly significant. Some cases interstates are state highways. But we've tried to balance those things the best we can. But it's working for the least bad outcome, really, is what we're working on. But you might have a different opinion. Yeah,. I think you kind of, I will. I do. I wasn't going to bring that up. If your question related to the changes in the ADU ordinance, right, and increased density that might result from loosening our ADU ordinance, the requirements around whether something would be on sewer or septic follow our municipal code. So nothing would change in terms of like a property owner would still have to either, again, you correct me if I'm wrong, like demonstrate that the property is capable of having a septic system or they'd have to connect to sewer. So, nothing changes there. Okay, I think while we transfer microphones, we'll go to Steve. Do you want to in the Zoom room? Do you want to speak? Go to you, David. Hey Steve, you can unmute. About that. Am I unmuted? There we go. Oh, all right. Well, thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members, Sage Melanie, thanks for the report. Sorry, I couldn't step in there. I had to run away for a meeting outside the town. However, I just declared that the item that I had written in as far as 800 square feet addition to the total floor air. I actually was of the understanding, and I may be wrong now that Sage had presented it, that the 800 square foot addition could be added to the main house, but it wouldn't, but if you'd had an independent ADU, you wouldn't get that total floor area credit added to the total floor air for a site. Did I miss and trippered that? Yes, so the 800 square feet is for any type of ADU, whether it's attached or detached. Okay. So right now allows you to get the 800 square foot exemptions. Okay. I mean, all size and the TFA. Okay. The attached into the house. All right. And then that does fall into where you actually thought I was looking at increasing the total flurry for certainly the SCP sites since they are constrained by various things. You know, and certainly slope was one of them. That's why back in I guess 88 when we worked on, you know, zoning these sites SCP, you know, 5, 7 and a half and all that. But it seems like this would be an appropriate time to allow them to get some more square footage because there's all, you know, their percentage of square footage to lot size is extremely limited. limited. In most areas it's like 9%, but in different zoning, you know, they might only get 3% or 3.5% of their site allowable for total floorier. So it seems like some leeway that could open up some real possibilities for creating ADUs and kind of a nice way in these difficult sites now that we can build on 35% slopes and put septic on 35% slopes. It almost removes that, you know, one of the SCP constraints. So something to consider and it sounds like maybe we'll be taking that up later. So I appreciate that. And maybe another point to that I need clarification on, I mentally brought it up regarding downhill sites. I guess my reading of that and maybe I read this wrong, but that was only to accommodate sites that are downhill slope from a public right away or an access easement if it's for any downhill slope. So if we were to find a steep area somewhere on the site, but it was the appropriate place to put the ADU, did the additional plate heights and roof heights apply to that as well? So I believe maybe referring to something that might be an uphill slope. And the downhill slope was focused on because it had the fewest visual, the smallest visual impact from the roadway, Where something on an uphill side it might be a little bit easier to step it into the hillside or at least it would reduce the visibility. Right, so is the increase in the laid height on downhill sites does it have to relate to a right away or can it be anywhere on any site? And it's kind of designed because I'd presume if you wanted to drop a factory built ADU, just off the side of a street, that really opens that up. But if it's not limited, I guess that's the question, is it limited to having that street access? As I thought it was written in that the new ordinance. It's just that the site itself has to be downslope in from the right of way and the area in which they use the 80 exception would have to be at least 15%. I'm saying what? Okay. 2% homes. All right. Well, here's the conundrum. Suppose it's an uphill site, but when you get to the top of the site, you want wanna put your ADU now below when you've got to the top of the site. Does that not allow us to do that? I mean, it's not a downhill site. I mean, it's uphill, but if we start halfway up the hill and we're looking down, do we get to incorporate that exception? The end of the wave's written, no, it would not be included first slide. Sites sloping uphill from the right of way. All right. I know if you can consider it at this juncture because it gets a little complex, but it seems like there could be an appropriate use. I mean, you know, I guess as an architect, you're trying to always develop these things to kind of fit into the hillsides. And that would work nicely on, you know, a site is not necessarily a downhill site, like when you get to the top of it with your driveway. So, I know it limits some possibilities, but yeah, that's the clarification. That's actually the way I understood it. I got to say I don't really like it, but I do understand what the where the direction was and why it started that way, but it seems like there's some opportunity to do something else with sites that slope uphill, but you know, the guest house would be or 80 you would be positioned in a downhill position. So So I'll work with that. But those are my only comments. I appreciate all the hard work. I think we'll be able to develop some nice ADUs in town with these new measures in place. Thanks for your time. Thank you, Mr. Patrick. Yeah, thank you. And if you wouldn't mind attempting to codify what you just said, We might be able to include it with the second reading as part of a public packet, right? And start to not on a second. When could we look at that? And because it seems like an important clarification. Yeah, we could bring that back to you again in the public. It's pretty similar. But on second reading, you can't make a assumption. All right, okay. So we're compiling a list of things we want to do. Okay, yeah, thank you. You really captured the imagination of a couple of us and I I appreciate the clarification on really trying to provide relief to the SCP in constrained locations versus just giving 800 square feet that everyone in town. Right, that's where I kind of run into it. I mean, in 80-A when we did this in the planning commission, it really constrained these sites, but that was because they had multiple things like Sage is saying, you know, could have a landslide, it could be, you know, a river running through it, but certainly part of it was their steep slopes. And we always classified anything over 35% is steep and pretty much unbuildable, no perk, no nothing. And now that that's somewhat relieved because of the ADU, it seems kind of appropriate that almost eliminates one of the constraints on these SCP sites and they should be allowed a little more square footage. So, okay. Appreciate it. Thanks so much for your time. Thank you. Appreciate the insights. Mr. Middlement. So I have some spare remarks but quickly, um, Mr. Council Member Brown, I think there's a way you can only put three any use in a barn versus four, which is what you originally asked, is because in the last ordinance we passed that you can have three A to U's attached or detached, but fourth has to be a J A to U, which has to be within the main resonance. So that's why you can only have three or not four in regards to the septic question that You asked. One of the main constraints with septic is a clause in this county septic code that constrains alternate septic systems through the bedroom count of a traditional, to put this in perspective, the site that I'm trying to develop in an area that supports three bedrooms, I could support 11 with an alternate septic system. We should talk to the county about that. And with guards, I told a floor area in main resonances, that is something that we've also struggled with coming up against main resonant size with two attached eighties. So, now I'm going to get some by prepared part. My perspective tonight comes from a five-year citizen with a year of experience on the ASRB for a sand knowledge and designing a project that appears in the code and respects the residential design guidelines and a perspective informed by living in the western hills. The town just adopted a change in the cone, allowing the construction of engineers on 50% without a variance. However, like every engineering problem, multiple constraints and requirements dictate any solution. By allowing the construction of 80 years on slopes up to 50% downhill plate relief became necessary. Moreover, slopes tend not to be uniform, requiring plate heights like the individually different at every corner. Consider a modest rectangular 800 square foot A.V.O. If site constraints were acquired, situating the A.V.O. against the contour lines, I.E. with the longer side of the building going downhill, rather than across the hill. The downhill height could be greater than 28 feet compared with an element front uphill plane height. This height could be avoided by turning into the hillside and sending them building below grain in the front. However, that is at odds with the residential design guidelines, which prescribes minimizing cut and fill wherever possible. Instead of constraining the downhill plane height to a new maximum, I would ask that you consider a different constraint on the downhill side. The downhill plate height has to meet the uphill plate height on a horizontal plane. However, yeah, that's a constraint. Additionally, part of our housing element goals is to provide housing for special needs groups including individuals with use wheelchairs or have mobility issues. An ADA accessible ramp has to have a maximum slope of 1 by 12 and a minimum width of 3 feet. This results in a minimum hard-skate requirement of 36 square feet for every one foot of elevation change. Our residential design guidelines also advocate for minimizing site disturbance and preserving the site's natural features as much as possible. Please consider future changes to plate height requirements to allow a level bridge for accessibility purposes in place for rent. bridges are often seen in the the western hills for this purpose but often require played heights for significant than 11 feet. The town of Woodside can reduce barriers of the purpose-belt housing for seniors and disabled persons by allowing a played height to exceed the 11th maximum when necessary to create a level accessible signal for ADO. Thank you. I am proud to to the town that's committed to making housing within the supporters for affordable and accessible. Thank you, Mr. Middleman. And why don't we add that a little bit to the list of things to consider and just like you're asking, an ADA situation could be a variance situation. I mean, obviously, we're not variance. Topic came up at planning commission, and that was the same response is that, but we were looking at was, you know, every time we want to make sure that there's allowances for folks to get more flexibility, it's also important for us to look at how that may impact surrounding properties. And so when making these changes, we're a little bit careful on taking a too far right up front. That's why we stuck to the 28-foot height limit and that was more akin to like a one story. I mean sorry what a main residence would be allowed on a site. And also one planning commissioner had the same question and felt very comfortable with the 28-foot height limit and that it's meeting the basic setbacks so So wouldn't be much different than someone's main residence. So in this particular instance, it could be looked at further. And the, the, it also, if someone did need some special exception to provide ADA access, there still is the avenue to go through a variance, which be looked at on a case by case basis. Okay, thank you. Any other pub? Hi. Miss Ward. Thanks. Well, since I'm here, I'll say thank you to Sage and Melanie for working on this. I think it makes a lot of sense. I really appreciate you taking all my concerns into account. This seems to be a very fair way to allow people to convert their existing barns and without having to do a lot of extra work, which would make it there for more affordable to do. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Ms. Ward. Any other public comments? We've got a couple of new members in the Zoom room. Okay, I think we're at a closed public comment and open deliberations. Anyone want to kick things off? How you feeling? That's my reverie. Sure. On this side today. I don't have a whole lot to say on this. I think there were some really good public comments and emails and letters we received, raising some additional things that we can improve further. But as of right now, I think the most important thing is just getting in compliance with the law. And so I would think we would just want to pass this. You're good. I don't remember well. Yeah, I definitely support the ordinance. I would definitely support direction to staff to bring back the two suggestions raised by Mr Patrick, the one related to the total floor area, not just in the SCP zone, but I'd say town wide wide wide. No, not really. Well, it's not the Gendai, so we can't debate, but I appreciate we don't. Okay, but I mean, we could discuss as a council giving direction to sort of, okay, that's, yeah, that's not an issue with That's not a procedure. Oh, no, no And then the second suggestion that mr. Patrick raised which is to look at the sloping uphill sites I think that would be a really good thing to look at Otherwise There is a portability ordinance How's my brown? Yeah, I just want to say that I suggest that we create some kind of action item put down. Maybe town council to look into. What can we do to encourage more equestrian oriented housing and structures in this community? To try to rebuild some of our heritage. It's really striking away from it. I'd like to address what Ms. Gilbert mentioned about traffic. We can't just say, we'll look at it at some future date. It's coming in from both all directors around us, us and be grown as much as we are. We're all gonna create traffic that comes into Woodside. And right now we have basically everything comes right to downtown. We have to figure out what to do about it. And as I look at our town plan, we'll talk about in a minute, I don't think we can stop, say it's not just that. Where are we, how are we gonna handle all this traffic? And big, big question. Add now it's going to get worse. Last minute, it's going to be at least 25% worse. The time us and our surrounding communities build out this time around as well as in the early 30s. Okay, and I'll just add that sort of in the context of what we're facing as a community, terms of new subdivisions and SB 9 lots and what's happened with SB 450 and targeted density in North of 20 units and acre, the conversion of barns to 80 use, is probably the most appropriate and most aligned action we could take on a relative basis. So very supportive. And I think just maybe we'll just look with shaking heads. We had a couple of directions around Questory and heritage revival, if you will, in terms of barn production and then the Steve Patrick Justons. I think we're all in agreement for the, I won't say that. Are we all in agreement that that's reasonable direction? Okay. Okay, then with that we would entertain a motion on the ordinance in front of us or first read introduction of a person. I can make that motion. So I move to approve the introduction in first reading of an ordinance to amend provisions of the municipal code chapter 153 related to zoning regarding the conversion of barns to accessory dwelling units in ADU height limitations. Second. How's the member of a race? Yes. Council Member Brown. Yes. Council Member Gold. Council Member Wall. Mayor D of a reach. Yes. As a member of Brown. Yes. As a member of gold. As a member of all. Mayor Don Kowski. Yes. Thank you. Okay. And the second reading will be at our next meeting. Yes. We can make changes. No. We can't. So this is large. You cannot make substantive changes at a second reading. Yes. or where you give direction out of come back in some form for introduction. Okay. All right. make substantive changes in a second meeting direction. Yes. Or you gave direction out of come back in some form for introduction. OK. All right. And on to old business item B, the town center plan. So we are back our continuation last meeting. So thank you for giving us the opportunity to make sure we measure twice and cut once on this important strategic issue. And I think I'll hand it off to you, Kevin. Yeah, I thank you. Thank you. So before each night again is the resolution which will authorize me to enter into a process professional services agreement with the Good City Company to conduct our town center area plan update. The town center area plan update is something that the council introduced or added to the budget about two years ago now. My came for council and suggested that we put money in the budget to hire an urban planning firm to leave the town center plan update. Sharing at that time that we had as a town done it about shortly after the adoption of the general plan back in 2012. There was a staff run update attempt, I will say. We had a task force that did a lot of work on that. And ultimately what came out of that was some safe roads to school improvements, but some of the other ideas and some of the other work that was done at that time was lost when the council decided not to move forward. And I, in asking for money and funds in the budget to do this project, I said and we kind of emphasize as we've gone forward with this that a wide ranging and by wide ranging. But wide ranging, I mean, an opportunity for everyone in town to participate at some level and engage with a town center update process is important. That's something we emphasize in the RFP is something that we looked at in judging the responses that we got to the RFP. I've mentioned that town center plan is an idea the update our plan dates back to 1988 so it's really aged. It was an idea and an implementation measure that came out of the general plan in 2012. And then in 2023, what we talked about were two things that were a catalyst to revisit the issue and to go try again. And that was in 23, we were coming out of COVID and observed that land uses in commercial areas, large and small, the way that offices and retail and those things worked were changing. And, you know, we're now five years after COVID. We've seen some reverse to the some. I would call it a reverting to the norm, pre-COVID, but not entirely. But the other catalyst, which certainly has not changed, is that we recognize that we needed to be looking ahead at future arena cycles. And one of the things that we didn't really have, a good option was how can we accommodate housing in the town center? And we heard comments during the housing element process that in an ideal planning scenario you would look to what housing close to services as a way of allowing people to use other modes of transportation to get around. I mean it's a classic planning concept that you want higher density closer to the grocery store, the library, those services that they can walk to. It makes a more pleasant environment, reduces trips. There's lots of good reasons to do that. So that is the reason that the council authorized the money and the funds, the funds in the budget for the town center area plan. last fall we came with the draft RFP which the council directed that we issue we did and now we've come to the point where we have received, received responses to that and staff has reviewed those. And we have made a recommendation that you, again, authorize me to sign a contract with a good city company. A couple of things I will say about good city. As you saw in the report, they they they they did turn out to be the highest cost proposal. We did. And it says right, this is you're not buying a this is not like buying a widget. What a firm can bring to the table and to the process is important. And I think important for a successful outcome. And that's really a stage and I and I really think that trying to determine who we thought was the best position to do that and I highlighted in the report some of the things that we saw as strengths for good city. One of the things that's not mentioned is that the the it's a company owned locally in Redwood City by a former planning director, community development director in the county. The principal, the project lead on this is a planning director from another former planning director of another agency in the county. So they really do understand the environment that we are in in this county. They've kind of, they've got a whole career of understanding that and work with communities that are similar of similar size. The other thing that was really high on my list was the variety of community engagement. So they're looking at online surveys. They're looking at the very outset, which I think is very important during stakeholder meetings with people who own the property and run the businesses. they get that first hand right out of the gate. Well, we haven't started yet. Just a couple of other things they did they did recognize they were one of two firms that recognized measure J the challenge that it um represents of the two they were the only one one that carried a process through to environmental review and adoption. And that is an important step if we do end up and I would expect and hope that before that there is a vote of the people to modify the rules. And I hope it is in support of a plan that the community has holest around round and understand this is what we're voting for. But to do that, you should have a plan adopted. But the critical piece, if the council is to put something on the ballot, is that the environmental review is done. This process that they've outlined would get you an environmental document, which should suffice for a vote, as well as an updated town center area plan. They did, I guess the last thing I'll say about this is that they did include last time we got together. There was some concern about the geography of the town center plan area and what would be looked at and I actually mentioned the mayor I thought that they may they may have. They may have done themselves it to service by actually putting in the map and they did a couple of color coded color color coded maps about ownership trend and use trend I think. But they used the map of the existing town center, which maybe gave the impression that we were sort of locked into that But we have talked to them confirmed and they did submitted a dendom that having the right border and the right boundary for this study for this update process is is one of the foundational pieces and it's one of the things that they would do in first phase and the first couple of phases, which kind of run concurrently are initial meetings with property owners, business owners. at in the first phase and the first couple of phases, which kind of run concurrently are, those initial meetings with property owners, business owners, engaging with the planning commission and or the town council to get some broad direction on how the project should unfold as well as the classic SWOT analysis. They bring in their professionals and kind of look at the economics, the transportation, all of the things that are on the ground now, the urban design, all of those pieces as they would ramp up for the bulk of the vision process, which would, under the schedule that they proposed would start in the summer of this year. So we can answer questions, but that is our recommendation. Right. Thank you very much. Questions for staff. I want to thank you for responding to some of the comments that were made at the last meeting we had. I think that there are very much more in tune with where I think we need, we want to go over the plan that it starts with really defining what is our town character. We really want it to be five, ten, fifteen years from now to the end's point. You know, we're going to be overloaded with traffic. What's that going to do if we're building everything, concentrate everything downtown. We're talking about multi-story buildings down, down, we're bringing more traffic downtown even though we're trying to avoid that. What kind of character are we going to have? I think step one, which they're talking about, talking to the residents is, what kind of character do they want? Do we want as a town to be? Do we want to be a rural community? Or do we really want to be something different? I won't define what it is because I'm not sure what it is either. It's certainly not a big city. I'd like the fact that they're talking about studying traffic and pedestrian. I hope it's not just a what's happened in the past. But what we really need is a projection. What can we anticipate over the next five or 10 years that's gonna be impacting on us? Bicycles, we are the most popular place in the entire county where bicycles ride through this like, you know, statistics on it. Yeah, I know. Do you have a question in, we haven't gotten to to the location? I'm trying to find. I never mind. No, it's sir. I'm not shutting you down in any way. I'd love to. My question is, is the study going to get into any kind of what you look future looking projections then backward looking? Yes. Yes. I mean, that's a vision plan. It looks out. It says, typically you look out over a 20 year horizon. Okay, and you try to accommodate, and so that issue of traffic as an example, think about what the future needs to be to accommodate not only what's here, but what's coming, and what's coming as it comes out of this planning process about what the community would like to see in its town center. OK. I know this is the highest cost of the proposals considerably higher. Is there any provision in the contract that we're considering that has no cost overrun or some restriction on changing the cost partly through the process. Or yours. Raise your hands. I know you're asking for something that's not in the country. Well, this is a it's a knock to exceed scope. So if something. So if something comes up through the process where you want to add something that's not in. Then we have to get approval before they go into that work. Okay. And well, that's it. And I want to confirm what you said about the proposal anticipates that they're going to be looking at more than just the area A and area B as defined in the proposal. Yeah, correct. Yes, and I think that's one of the things that they're going to be looking for. I think, you know, two weeks ago, and I don't think we define that here. I think that that's another thing that gets defined through process, but it gets defined at the start. So I think the council will have a role to play in that as well. But I have talked to them about. And again, they're local so they kind of know a little bit of the land, but. The town center, I think when we have an area to find in our plan, but I think when people think about it, most people probably include the school, the library, the fire station as you had west, as we're looking at housing, probably gonna wanna like east on what side road as well. Now how far you go and whether you go down mountain home or canyada I think is, I mean, I think it's all open for discussion, but they understand that this is a boundary that was set in 1988. And as the final just want to confirm that property owners are going to be an integral part from the very first step all the way through and stating their needs and wants. Yep, I think they have to be. Thank you. Thank you. But I just want to clear up on the interjection. I have a great deal of respect for your questions and your passion. So I appreciate that it wasn't not in any way trying to shut you down. It hurt me, but I care. All right, close to my heart. We'll just keep going down. Also close to my heart, Council Member Wall. Thank you for that. I had a question. I just wanted to ask about Measure J. there's something you said in your summary that I definitely didn't fully understand so I wanted to bring it up. You said something about how the proposal by Good City takes into account the scenario where the council would put on the ballot a modification or remove or wherever the case may be of measure J. And there was really to do. Pardon me. There was. Yeah. I need a new mic. There was something you said about in that scenario where it's the town council would pursue a modification of measure J that that would be exempt from environmental review. Please clarify. Yes. So let me clarify on a couple of points. There, their scope of work does not include a ballot measure and that's work that we would have to do another way. But they recognize that it's a, the current rules are limitation. And so when they even talk about when there's a going through the process, there may even be, they may even be at departure point where we look at, okay, this is, this is what I with measure J scenario and this is what a without measure J scenario looks like. So, so just in terms of the planning process, it's understood that's going to be part of what it has to be talked about by the community. I was talking about the ballot measure itself, the tool, if a governmental agency, if the town council decides that they want to put a ballot on, I'm sorry, yeah, I'm not sure on the ballot, thank you, or the people's consideration. The town council action is subject to sequer. And so the town council would have to do a sequer analysis. And the theory here is that because this ballot would be, you know, again, in an ideal scenario, this all works out the way I imagine it will. The ballot would be an implementation measure of the plan. And so the council would be placing that measure on the ballot. And that also means that the council would have, I mean, maybe it's a simple ballot measure. not, but the council would have control of what it says. But by virtue of taking that action, there needs to be environmental review on that action, which is different than when a citizen, as the one that we had for Kaniyatta corners, if a citizen's initiatives come forward, it is exempt from sequit by law. But it just doesn't shut down the possibility of somebody bringing something forward while this is going on. But it's a necessary ingredient. Okay, that is a really helpful clarification. One follow up to the extent you have any idea how onerous would a sequel process B to put for the town council to put a measure on the ballot. Do you have any idea? Really, I think it really is dependent on the measure, isn't it? Because you'd have to, it's like it, it's like any other zoning change that we would consider. You'd have to look at what the impact that would be and do the whole impact analysis. So. Okay. There's no real. Yeah. Yeah. No, I understand. All right. thanks. All the over you, Councilman Brebrich. I don't have any questions. All right. Air Pro Tem Gold. Just following up on that sequa issue, wouldn't it be equivalent pretty much to what we saw with the housing element, the programmatic, I mean, something yes those lines where they take a pretty high-level view. Yes. Yeah. For planning documents, they tend to be a very high-level. Then we would just be faced with the exact same thing when you've got an actual site-specific project-specific one. They would be subject to their own SQL review. Yes, and once before they're permit. Yes, and the idea that this really gets way into the weeds, but there are concepts in sequel law that allow you to take the programmatic EIR and where appropriate apply it to the project, but there's still going to be some project specific work that has to be done as well. And if a citizen citizens group made this proposal for this measure, it would be exempt. Yes. I'm curious. Thank you. And maybe one last follow up on the ballot measure. I think I'm just thinking backwards from Reno's seven planning. So this wraps up, this Townsender plan wrap up in December of 26. If it concludes that we need to do a ballot measure, what is hypothetically the process? How long does it take does the ballot have to go on a regular calendar? Can it be off cycle? All those kind of things, a scope on a normal like November ballot or it can be done as operate or I'm working it. And how long does it take between recommendation and enready. There's a short answer as you can have it on. You can do it any way you like. So you can there may be there may be political or strategic reasons you do it off cycle or not but cost is a factor and when you do it on a regular you do it on a regular, even year ballot, where there's a presidential or a gubernatorial election, it's just cheaper. But that's one factor among many. If... When do we start the planning process for seven? How many years ahead of time do we do that? Let's say we went with November of 28. If that's, I mean, this is, if then, if then, if then, I get it. Would the answer to the height restrictions in the downtown be sort of appropriately timed with when we would be already bringing together a proactive like a seven approach for housing? Yeah, well, if take this cycle that we just, we did. It's a 23 to 31 and we started work on it. I mean, we really got serious on it in 2021. So the timing is about right. I mean, it would be in place before we really. The cycle goes into effect is one of the planets. Okay. Yeah. that doesn't affect this one to planets. Okay, yeah, I'll get up there. Wait, wait, wait, wait, I was asking if you remembered when the reading numbers were actually issued, because that's when it gets real. If you think that was in 2021, for the 21, for the 23 cycle, yeah. So much to look forward to any other questions for staff. We have one. Is there any limitation on, you know, because like here we're obviously this is the initial cost of getting this started. Are there going to be limitations on them? Are they going to be thinking about the cost of everything? Is that part of this? Is that are they going to try to keep it within a certain budget? Yeah, as I said, it's a not to exceed proposal. But Ben, and so this takes this takes them through plan adoption and environmental review. So but then the actual building and making all the changes. That's what I'm referring to. Oh, that happens. I use the word organically and I get. I get looks, but that happens as property owners make decisions about or. Yeah, the implementation of the plan, it's going to fall to either the town or the. Or the property owners or business owners. Okay, or make sure both dig it. I'm sorry. And or a make sure both probably. Yes, likely to make sure. Okay. And then but is there is there? Okay. So that happens organically is then during the process there. Well, we take a take year and a half to do a plan update. And that plan, it's like a, it's an adjunct, if that's the right word, but it's like part of our general plan. So it's a long-term planning document. It provides kind of the framework and the guideposts for what should happen or can happen over the next 20 years or so. So it's really putting in place, it's putting in place a plan that will be implemented over time. But feel work where it will be done at that point. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think with that we'll close questions for staff and open public comment. Is there any public comment on yes? And we will get you a microphone, Miss Gilbert. I'm more confused than ever. I have quite a bit of a lot of property in the town center. I'll just, you know, hate to say things like that. like that. System Mary Margaret is going, what are you doing talking about what you have? But I just don't understand what you're putting on the ballot number one. I've heard it doesn't make any sense to me. You're going to do something in the town center. Well, as I'm telling you, I'm really invested mentally and, you know, materially in the town center. So what are you talking about? I mean, I, you and I have talked Brian, Brian, about the town center. I have a space where maybe something could be built and so on. Is that what you're doing? Are you demanding something there or what? Or changing? I have four buildings there. I really have kind of my foot in this. So I want to know what you're really talking about when you say the town center. Right. So there is a map. I know you don't have a document in front of you, but just to clarify, there was a lot of talk about ballot measure because it was just something that was talked about in the response to the RFP, but what we're doing tonight is hiring an outside consulting firm to update the town center plan. Hasn't been updated in 35 years or so. And so we're overdue. It's also part of our housing element. It's a requirement that we do this. So we're bringing in some outside consultants to help us walk through it to your process that would be highly engaged with the public. As we were, as you and I met earlier, just to reiterate, The first step is the primary stakeholders will be met with. You are a perhaps primary stakeholder number one. So you should just expect to be the first meeting. And then later there will be your number one. Your number one and everybody's hard to. So then there'll be also a citizen committee that we put together that might be a dozen people representing every aspect of town. And there's also the potential, of course, for you to, you are able to be involved in that as well. So this is about hearing from the town as councilmember Brown was saying, hearing from the town about what they want. So you'll have a big voice in the outcome. And then the outcome of that report will come to us with their recommendations, and it'll be discussed at council. It's a two year process, so this is gonna come together around fourth quarter of 2026 ultimately. And between now and then there'll be a lot of open public transparent process around it. So you're saying that people in the town at large would have some influence on the stakeholders that are in the town center already. And things could change or people could propose and they're going to, were you going to get the money for that or are we supposed to, you know. Yeah, there's, so we got to see how it all comes out. There's no, I'm going to hand it off to you at a moment because I don't want to get out over my skis. But there's nothing, I don't think there's anything that's envisioned at this time that is really what we're going to be doing is getting input. Okay input from the primary stakeholders input from a citizen committee that might have a representative from council representative from planning commission. Some somebody that represents the equestrian community, the biking community, and so forth, right? A group of a collective group just for feedback, not a decision-making body, like it was the last time around in 1988, but just an advisory body to get more input from the community. And that'll be discussed among professional staff and here at council ultimately ultimately. Yeah and I don't want to step any farther than that. You know, I think the main I think the main point is that what we're working on is an update to a planning document. So it doesn't compel doesn't compel any property in order to do anything. Well, you know, right now we've had the bikers tear up all of our would you do it when you try to make it not go fast? There's some end things we had, what are they? Bumps. Speed bumps, who said that? Ah, Melanie, of course. So they've been torn up twice. I have people coming from the back. I wanna put a block it off with, I have three openings. Not everybody has three openings. And it's just pretty idiotic what's going on there because moms and maybe some dads are coming to the post office after school. The little kids are coming out and sitting there and it's pretty frightening because everybody that comes up from the pub which now has people just racing through our property from that back. So I'm putting a I'm closing that off. I guess I have to get some kind of permit or something but it has to because it's dangerous for the people coming out of the post office. And it's a shortcut. Remember I told you that people are there coming through because they don't want and going all the way through our parking lot. And this is a whole line, like a snake line. And it stops so that they can turn it, Roberts. And it's much easier than having to go out through our other exit in front of the restaurant, which is into all the traffic. So these kind of things are happening down there. And I don't know who has some idea out there in the world, but they're not living what we're living on our property down there. It's really getting really horrible. So I don't know. Yeah. So I think there are two levels to that. One is maybe it's tied to the town center plan and giving that kind of feedback. But the other is if we are having circulation issues to make sure that we've elevated that and can address whether or not through roads, if you will, in the back. Yeah. But I mean, that's exactly, this is, we know there are issues in the town center that we'd like to solve. And this is a process that's meant to get at that as well. Absolutely. Yeah. So. And we've had a couple of crashes in cars because they're zooming through their crashes to tore down our trees in there. So the kids coming out with their their moms really, I'm sorry, mothers are the ones that go to the post office more than you guys are do. But it's pretty frightening, I think. So I've had it, you know, there. So how do I have to get a permit? Kevin, give me a permit. So I can put the thing in. I want the one in the back between me and the pub people. Well, we can, we'll, when we follow up with that. I believe with you, but appreciate that. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Any other public comments? Anybody in the Zoom room? If not, I think we're going to close public comment and move to deliberations. Any strong feelings anyone want to lead off? Council member goal. So, obviously, supportive of this project. And I think you found a really good firm. I was pretty impressed with the documents that you provided and I think that it's the right scope. I also, I think it's a good thing that it's a little bit loose at this point. In other words, we got to sort of figure this out. And I think that it's the right kind of team to sort of like define what we need to do here. But I believe it's intended to capture circulation cars, parking, walkways, safe routes to school, equestrian issues, parking, roadways, everything else like that in the town center. I think that's exactly what it's meant to capture, including the points that you brought up a bit earlier. I think it's meant to capture all of those things if we could find a safer way for bicycles to traverse through the town without killing people coming out of the post office. That would certainly be desirable. The point was also raised about the ballot measure. The ballot measure is just one element to this because we have restrictions in our town, roughly from the pioneer, I'm correct, over to Robert's Market, where we're limited to the height that we can build things. And that may need to be overturned by another referendum, another measure passed by the town. That's separate in a part, but it may be required if we wanna build all our things in the town center. We may have some limitations there. That's a, I think that's not the key issue here, but it may be an important issue and a necessary issue as we move forward. I just wanted to bring that out, but I'm certainly in support and I thank the town and their staff for at least listening to the town council based on the direction we had. I think that we got the right. I know it's just a short addendum that they added and it's fine, but I think that it's important to at least send that message that we need to be flexible on what we're defining here. Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah. All right. Can I borrow your mic? Can I keep it? I'm excited. Yeah, I'm probably the most excited about this project, this plan. We've been waiting for it. I think it's super exciting. Everybody that I talk to in town, when I let them know that this is going to be a project that the town council is taking on is super supportive. You know, I don't think anybody feels like the current town center is, nobody likes the status quo. It's a big parking lot and I think it has a ton of potential. It really should be for the residents. And so I'm really excited to see how this plan takes shape. I think the not to exceed the cost and scope language in the contract is really smart, Kevin. So thank you for making sure that that was included. On timing, I think we need to really keep a close eye on the timing of how this plan comes together. If we do decide to, the town council does decide to pursue a ballot measure, which I personally hate couldn't come quick, quick enough. I think we need to make sure that we do do it in time to make sure that it is, the results are ready for the next rene cycle because I think we could have had more tools in our tool belt for this rene cycle and really our hands were really tied because we had very limited options. And so would, I mean, not only would be potential, I mean, definitely would want that additional optionality for the next greener cycle, but you know, if we move quick enough, we could potentially have that optionality for this greener cycle too. So I think that's something to think about. And yeah, I think I'm really enthusiastic about the Town Center area land update. Yeah, jump in. She looked at the 51st. I'm okay with the where it's been modified when we want to go. My only suggestion going forward is that we have a regular agreed upon like every quarter or every month, report to the council. What's been discussed, where are we going next? We don't end up two years down, well I was like, okay, here's the plan. And nobody seems to know where it is or where it came from and how we got to where we are. I think we need to have a very regular update built into the planning. Write that down. Sir, I want to remember average. Yeah, I, um, so I think here, you know, it's this is our town. Obviously this is I think probably the one of the most important things I'll do while being on the town council as, you know, overseeing this and no. So I'm really glad that we didn't, you know, go with the cheapest route or cheaper route and really just looked thank you for really looking through them and figuring out which would be the best fit for our town and yeah, supportive of the whole thing. Great. Thank you. And I'll just add that, you know, we need to be proactive about cycle seven and how we want the town to evolve and grow. And it's going to be a good multi-year process and one that I agree. I wish we would have had this at our fingertips would have given us a little bit more optionality. And so to the degree we can get it done, it's going to be very helpful in the planning process and there's a very strategic thing to be working on for sure. And the timing is all nicely metered out so I appreciate that too. overall, I would agree. The selection of the provider, the background, the experience, the understanding, getting right to the issues at the heart of the matter. I think, and I appreciated the time to make sure that we had the scope of the engagement that was going to be useful to us, or at least that we would understand that that was the process. And I think that alone is probably the biggest deal to me and I'm glad that we got there. So obviously supportive and would entertain a motion to item B. Andy? For this? Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. I want to move to. Prove a resolution authorizing the town manager to execute a professional services agreement with good city company to conduct the town center area plan update. One second. That's a member of a British. Yes. That's a member of Brown. Yes. That's a member of Gold. That's a member of Wall. Mayor Tom Kowski. Yes. Great. Thank you. And we'll look forward to significant engagement with the primary stakeholders of the downtown area. Thank you, Leigh. Actually, the number one primary state client was said here. This way I have to show up these meetings. It's all the wonderful remarks. I think next up we've got volunteer communications is everybody on that you're on that. I got it. I was I just forwarded something. And also I just went out there in your packet was a report that Environment Open Space provided to you. Yep. We appreciate that. A couple of things to mention there for the second year now they're the same environment open space provided to you. Appreciate that. A couple of things to mention there for the second year now, they're the same environment open space committee has the back here. I'm sorry, the hairdress tree award. Nominations are open. They did this last year and made an announcement. May they parade? They are planning to do so again this year. Applications are open until the 23rd at this point. The committee, I don't I presume you've all heard about this but something new that something new this year they're they've organized for a family camp out. This is going to be at Memorial Park. I think there was an issue with other parks but there's a registration online it will sell out quickly. They will do wait lists, but you've mentioned this. It's almost sold down. Oh, okay. It's like 70 people, I think. Yeah, this is a, this is a first ever, but this should be, this should be fun and, you know, interesting. The committee has had to do fun. And that is committee. Yeah, yes, and then the last the history committee. They'll be helping out at the 100 year Centennial Commemoration and Open House for Station 7, which will take place a week from this Saturday, so the 22nd and I plan to go over to be getting some of the some of the early. Whatever they're doing to commemorate the opening of the station seven. But that's a, it is that the fire district is 100 years old this year. They were established in 1925. So it's a nice year for them to kind of officially open up the station. That's what I've got. Sorry if I missed it. I know there's an email somewhere I could dig up, but what was the date of the fire? It's March 22nd. Could I follow up? Yeah. Just on the report from committees, I'm the liaison to the recreation committee, the best committee. And I just wanted to point out that Chairman Richard mains was handed the baton to Rowan. And I think he's been the longest serving. I'm not positive. Yeah, I think he's been the longest serving chair of any committee, something like 20 years. I mean, a long time. For guy who's not very old, but I think that that's certainly a notable accomplishment and the handoff was notable. I'm amazed that it happened. Yeah, I am too. It was some wine involved and whining. Yeah. Well, if there's anything, again, maybe that's a good segue. If there's ever a volunteer that needs a proclamation or would qualify for an honor coin or something, but we're all ears. Thank you. Yes, sir. in June, July and March 20th next, next, next, next Thursday. I think it's 5 or so are we done with volunteer? Yeah. Okay, moving on to council communications. All right. March 2035. Ben's hall will be a crime prevention workshop. And we're hosting here. I'll also include people from residents of Woodpept, Portola Valley. Expecting a good turnout. I think a good turnout. Good. They're promoting that heavily in Portola Valley as well as here. Great. The other big issues. Yeah. So you all received a desk item that I asked Jen to print out. Thank you, Jen, for making that available to the council members. It relates to an email I got from Leslie Ragsdale, who's the Hillsborough Vice Mayor. And it relates to California Association of Youth Commission. So essentially, Leslie's on a board that advocates for and encourages the creation of youth commissions. And she did a little digging and looks like Woodside does not currently have a youth commission. And so I think the ask here is if you know of any youth in the area in Woodside that would be interested in getting involved in a youth commission, you know, you know how to email I was forwarded to you. So please do highlight this to them and might be something really cool for them to do. I'll be mentioning it to my high school or low expectation that you will bite, but we'll see. Anyway, just wanted to put it out there. I thought it was a cool thing that I wanted to make sure everybody knew about. Just I had sent out a car spawn that's earlier today about changing the start time. I just got to bring it up this moment. Eight o'clock for the Saturday. You didn't see anybody had any issues with it, but I appreciate the accommodation very much. Oh, yeah, of course, I'll more than call face. It's like, yeah, and we did hear from provider that that couldn't. Good, thank you, appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. And then I'll just mention that we do have a lot on our plate this month beyond the meeting tonight. We have a long week of interviews ahead of us and a very important decision to make as a group. And because of that, we plan to get what we needed to get done for the month tonight. So we're going to count all these closed sessions, if you will, in place of a second meeting this month. We will reconvene on April 8th. So in lieu of that, we've got a wonderful, what, go ahead. That's right. Yeah. So no second public meeting this month is the bottomless. We do have a lot of wonderful things, including, as just heard from councilmember Brown, if you're available, it would be a wonderful to have your presence at that event on the 20th. This might be a good moment to dust off all of your committee obligations and maybe make an in-person showing since we won't have a Tuesday night meeting to earn a lot of your other time. And then we'll come back in April with some really interesting agenda items. So it's coming weeks, a big week. So we're going to make a little pivot on the public schedule as a result. Okay, I guess with that, 908 meeting adjourned. Thank you all.