[0:06] Okay, let's call the town council
[0:08] meeting of February 10th, 2026 to order.
[0:11] Jen, will you take role?
[0:13] >> Council member Aberish. Council member
[0:15] Brown
[0:16] >> here. Council
[0:16] >> member Gold, Council Member Wall, Mayor
[0:19] Donowski
[0:20] >> here. Council member Aberish, will you
[0:22] lead us in the pledge of allegiance?
[0:41] Thank you, sir.
[0:44] Moving on to communications. Uh, this is
[0:48] public comment, so persons wishing to
[0:50] address the council in any matter not on
[0:51] the published agenda are invited to do
[0:53] so. Please note, however, that the
[0:55] council is not able to undertake any
[0:58] extended discussions or act on
[0:59] non-aggendaized items. Such issues can
[1:02] be referred to staff for a future agenda
[1:05] placement. This period is limited to
[1:07] five persons, three minutes each. Is
[1:09] there anyone in the audience that would
[1:10] like to speak on any issue not on the
[1:12] published agenda?
[1:20] Seeing none and seeing none in the Zoom
[1:22] room, we will move on. Uh we are
[1:25] fortunate tonight to have a presentation
[1:27] from the youth civics program. And I
[1:30] believe Moira, am I handing this off to
[1:33] you? Okay.
[1:46] All right. Hi, council members. Um, we
[1:51] have now concluded our youth, our first
[1:54] Woodside youth civics program, and we
[1:58] wanted to share a little bit about the
[2:01] program with you, but it was very
[2:03] successful. It was so much fun. Um, just
[2:06] a reminder, it was grades 3rd through
[2:08] 6th. It was five days over five weeks
[2:11] and we covered basic town governance. We
[2:14] covered um safety and emergency
[2:18] preparedness. We covered businesses and
[2:21] local nonprofits um and kind of how
[2:24] everything works together. And we did a
[2:25] mock town council meeting um and the
[2:28] topic was whether a um it was Oak Meadow
[2:33] Ice Cream could um open up their
[2:35] business in the meadow over here. And it
[2:38] was um de uh the planning commission
[2:41] said no. And so it was appealed to town
[2:43] council and that was what these kids um
[2:46] some of them played members of town
[2:48] council, some of them were Oak Meadow
[2:50] ice cream, some of them were um
[2:52] environmental groups that were opposed
[2:54] to cutting down the oak trees. So um it
[2:57] was a really successful program. Um and
[3:00] some of our uh students have prepared um
[3:04] things to share about the program.
[3:10] Hi Woodside. I'm Grant Simcover and I go
[3:13] to Woodside School and I am in third
[3:15] grade. I love doing the youth civics
[3:18] program. If it felt good to get a say in
[3:21] the debate and get to learn all about
[3:24] Woodside. A special thank you to Mora
[3:27] for putting on this program and making
[3:30] it so fun. I learned so much.
[3:34] Hi, my name is Callie Berman and I go to
[3:37] Woodside school at third grade. I loved
[3:40] the Woodside civics because it was so
[3:42] fun. My favorite part was pretending to
[3:46] be a real town council, meeting and
[3:48] learning about how the decisions are
[3:50] discussed and made.
[3:53] Um, my name is Alex and and I'm in third
[3:55] grade and and one thing I enjoyed about
[3:58] the civics program was um you got the opportunity to like be on the town
[4:05] council and you got to make decisions
[4:08] like a real town council member.
[4:14] » I am Andre Jing I mean fifth grade. I I
[4:18] really thank you for giving us a chance
[4:19] to learn how our town government works.
[4:25] Thank you guys so much.
[4:26] >> Well, and thank you all. Very special
[4:28] thank you to our young residents for
[4:30] your interest in participating in this
[4:32] program and learning a little bit about
[4:34] how local government serves the
[4:36] community. Uh I'll be interested to
[4:38] learn more about your favorite parts of
[4:40] uh which role you thought was the
[4:42] favorite. Um and a special thank you to
[4:44] the volunteer committee for uh this
[4:46] inaugural effort. This is a lot of work.
[4:48] Thank you all. Uh and very creative and
[4:50] wonderful to see. Uh, I also want to
[4:53] acknowledge council member Wall and
[4:55] former mayor Shaw and town men manager
[4:58] Led Better for their participation. Uh,
[5:00] really a wonderful thing and uh, really
[5:03] a wonderful step forward. So, thank you
[5:04] all for your leadership and involvement
[5:06] and uh, you don't mind, I'd love to come
[5:08] shake your hand. So,
[5:12] » and we have certificates for completing
[5:15] the program for you guys.
[5:33] want to go there?
[5:35] >> He's telling us to go over here.
[5:39] >> Okay, we get the the committee.
[5:42] >> Sure.
[5:50] Okay, three, two, one. Smile everyone.
[5:53] Lots of pictures.
[5:57] » Perfect. Thank you very much.
[6:06] » You left him hanging. You left him
[6:08] hanging. Don't leave him hanging.
[6:17] This is this is Stalia Luben. I just
[6:20] want to add one thing uh that Chris Shaw
[6:23] did a great job as mayor and in fact we
[6:25] were talking he and I were talking at at
[6:28] the end of the meeting and he said maybe
[6:30] we should think about doing something
[6:32] like this for adults. Um because a lot
[6:35] of he said the same thing. I I get
[6:38] people at the store saying, "Oh, you
[6:40] know about the town. Tell me this." and uh he says maybe we should do an
[6:44] adult class and actually Melissa told me
[6:46] that Half Moon Bay actually has a
[6:48] similar program. So we're going to put
[6:50] our thinking caps on and maybe next year
[6:53] we'll we'll do two programs.
[6:55] >> Interesting. Well, thank you.
[6:57] >> Nice.
[6:58] >> Uh okay.
[7:01] Well, moving right along. We've got
[7:03] appointments for planning commission for
[7:04] districts one and three and uh
[7:10] Sure.
[7:16] I think that's if everyone's all right
[7:17] with that, we'll just jump over and do
[7:19] town appointments first while we wait
[7:21] for Commissioner Gar to arrive.
[7:24] >> Sure.
[7:24] >> Uh so who do which which of you lovely
[7:27] subappoint committee folks are
[7:29] >> happy to let Paul have the floor.
[7:31] >> Okay. Okay.
[7:33] Um Okay. So um we had an extensive uh
[7:36] agenda here. Every year we go through
[7:38] and um ask the committees for reports.
[7:41] We got I think eight of the nine if I'm
[7:43] not mistaken. Maybe it was seven of the
[7:44] nine. I think I got that. Um and for the
[7:49] most part they are reappoint requests
[7:52] from I'm not going to go through them
[7:53] because it's in the packet, but they're
[7:55] reappoint requests for livestock and
[7:58] equin recreation committee trails
[8:00] committee etc. all the way through.
[8:01] There were however two new applicants
[8:04] and we should probably take those in. By
[8:06] the way, the committee um uh recommends
[8:09] that the reappoint requests be honored.
[8:12] Um I would point out that there were
[8:13] some attendance issues. There always
[8:15] are. Um most of them were excusable or
[8:18] excused. Uh there were some hardship
[8:20] cases uh for for the few that actually
[8:23] were issues. But in every single case,
[8:25] the chair of the committees had
[8:27] recommended uh were supporting the
[8:29] reappoints on these. and they also gave
[8:31] a uh um a little bit of summary of what
[8:34] was going on in their committees and I
[8:36] wanted to thank them for that. So the
[8:38] two that we have um are uh and we should
[8:42] probably take them in order. Uh the
[8:44] first one is for uh the trails
[8:46] committee. Uh there are 15 members.
[8:48] There are four that are being uh
[8:50] reappointed as I mentioned. Those are
[8:52] not um
[8:55] u controversial. Uh but uh there's a new
[8:59] member, Veronica
[9:01] Pichchafuko. I think I'm pronouncing
[9:03] that correctly. Pichafuko. I don't know
[9:05] if I'm doing that correctly. Um and she
[9:08] did include and and comes with the um
[9:10] recommendation of the committee chair
[9:12] and uh based on that uh the
[9:14] recommendation is to approve her
[9:16] appointment to the trails committee. She
[9:18] would be the fifth person and there's
[9:19] two vacancies uh after after that. Do we
[9:24] need to do anything special or you want
[9:26] me to do these as a single motion?
[9:28] Everything just take them at one. Okay,
[9:29] great.
[9:30] >> The uh second appointment uh she happens
[9:32] to be here tonight. Leanne Gilbert uh
[9:34] for the circulation committee. There are
[9:36] nine members uh in total. There are four
[9:39] that are expiring. Uh there's been a
[9:42] suggestion of a reappoint or
[9:43] recommendation that we reappoint um the
[9:46] four that are up. One of them is here
[9:48] tonight, Dan Duker. I see him in the
[9:50] back of the room. Um, and uh, there's
[9:53] one new applicant, and that, as I
[9:54] mentioned, is Leanne Gilbert. Um, and,
[9:58] uh, I'm not so sure that there's any
[10:00] controversies about any of this, but,
[10:02] um, I'll open it up to the, uh, floor if
[10:05] there's any issues or discussions or I
[10:08] don't want to cut off Leanne if she
[10:09] wants to say anything, but I'll
[10:11] >> she doesn't have to.
[10:12] >> Any questions from councel?
[10:17] None. Any members of the public or any
[10:19] of the applicants? on either applicant.
[10:21] Yes.
[10:24] >> Then I think we are ready for a motion.
[10:26] Subcommittee.
[10:26] >> I would like to make a motion that we
[10:28] appoint Leanne Gilbert to the
[10:30] circulation committee and that we
[10:31] appoint uh Veronica
[10:34] to the trails committee.
[10:36] >> Second.
[10:37] >> Council member Alberish.
[10:39] >> Yes.
[10:39] >> Council member Brown.
[10:40] >> Yes.
[10:40] >> Council member Gold.
[10:42] >> Yes.
[10:42] >> Council member Wall. Mayor Donowski.
[10:45] >> Yes. Thank you. And um thank you. Yes.
[10:48] Congratulations and welcome aboard
[10:50] >> and to
[10:52] uh Veronica.
[10:55] >> I see Matt Gar in the Zoom room. So I
[10:57] think we're going to move into the uh
[11:00] interview and appointment of planning
[11:02] commissioners. And uh before we begin, I
[11:05] just want to acknowledge that uh this
[11:07] moment is usually one of these moments
[11:08] that I actually dread every year. And I think I'm not alone, particularly when
[11:12] we have three great candidates for two
[11:14] spots. Uh but uh we received some notice
[11:18] uh yesterday uh from Commissioner
[11:20] Atville who's in the room right now that
[11:22] he had withdrawn his application stating
[11:25] that he has tremendous respect for
[11:27] Commissioner Gar and Citizen Evans and
[11:30] uh that with that sincere interest he
[11:33] saw no reason to run against those
[11:35] proposed candidates. So um I just want
[11:38] to take a moment to thank Commissioner
[11:40] Apple for his service to the community.
[11:43] He was very gracious several years ago
[11:46] uh willing to step in uh in an out ofd
[11:48] district appointment and uh we're very
[11:50] appreciative of that and it was been an
[11:52] absolute honor to have you in that spot
[11:53] and we certainly hope that in district
[11:55] or out of district in the future that we
[11:57] get that opportunity again. So thank you
[11:59] again. Uh we will make sure to get a
[12:01] proclamation and an honor coin in your
[12:02] pocket in the next couple of weeks and
[12:04] uh and uh once again thank you for your
[12:06] service to the community on planning and trails over over the last eight
[12:10] years. really really appreciate it. Uh
[12:13] we're going to take the applicants now
[12:15] for uh planning commission in the order
[12:17] that they are listed on the agenda. So
[12:20] uh each applicant has the opportunity to
[12:22] speak. There'll be questions from
[12:23] council. We'll open it up to any
[12:25] questions or comments from public and
[12:26] then we will uh deliberate and vote with
[12:29] the two candidates that we have for
[12:30] these two spots. So uh Mr. Evans, you
[12:35] are up first. Welcome.
[12:39] >> Okay. Um, just want to thank uh the
[12:42] actually the previous planning
[12:43] commissions for doing a lot of the hard
[12:45] yards over the last couple years. The
[12:47] housing element and subsequent fallout
[12:49] from that was was not easy. Um, and so
[12:53] watching that uh gave me a lot of lot
[12:55] more respect for the planning commission
[12:57] than I had before. Not that I didn't
[12:59] have it, that was hard. Um, and late
[13:01] nights for those guys. Um, so for for
[13:04] this round, I really just feel like
[13:07] every citizen should do something for
[13:08] their town over time. Um, and this is
[13:10] actually a really good time for me. My
[13:12] 18-year-old's going off to college, so I
[13:14] have little less kids at home. Works
[13:16] kind of slow right now, so I'm like,
[13:17] "Hey, I can actually do something." Um,
[13:19] so this is actually really good time.
[13:21] And Matt and company got through the
[13:24] hard stuff last year. So, um I just look
[13:27] forward to uh doing what I can to help
[13:28] the town and and really just like help
[13:32] folks who have to go to the planning
[13:34] commission just find a way to make it
[13:35] work. Um I think that's really the the
[13:38] town's codes and and uh
[13:41] guidance is really not hard to follow.
[13:44] Um but there's always as as we've sort
[13:46] of found out, there's nothing in this
[13:48] town that's straight or flat or easy to
[13:51] get around. So there's always going to
[13:52] be deviations. um there's always sort of
[13:54] way to find neutral ground and I know
[13:56] that the building department and
[13:57] planning department have have usually
[14:00] bring the planning commission very
[14:01] thoughtful recommendations and views on
[14:03] that. So let's look forward to do my
[14:05] part.
[14:06] >> Wonderful. Thank you very much. Uh
[14:08] questions for Mr. Evans.
[14:13] » Great. Mr. Evans, uh you're 100% right.
[14:17] There was a lot of work done in 2024.
[14:23] It was finalized in 24 but it started
[14:25] long before that.
[14:26] >> Yeah. So there's been a lot of done a
[14:28] lot of work done so far on the housing
[14:29] element.
[14:30] >> However, there is still a lot of hard
[14:32] work ahead of us
[14:33] >> um to implement the programs and other
[14:37] elements of our housing element. So just
[14:38] curious to hear your perspective on on
[14:41] the housing element and and how you
[14:43] would approach um the implementing
[14:45] portion of the hard work ahead of us.
[14:47] >> Yeah. So, you know, look looking at the
[14:49] overall uh goal of the element of
[14:52] adding, you know, over 300 units to
[14:54] Woodside, I just see it as really hard.
[14:57] Um, no matter what happens uh or what
[15:01] the state says or must be done you, it
[15:04] boils down to every individual owner of
[15:06] a lot has to decide what they want to do
[15:08] with their lot. And if we don't have
[15:10] hundreds of people who want to expand
[15:12] their lots, I'm not sure how it's going
[15:13] to change. Um so so a lot of the I know
[15:17] there in the in the process of the
[15:18] housing element there was a lot of sort
[15:20] of fear that things would really change
[15:21] radically. Um I I really I strug I
[15:24] really struggled to see how how we're
[15:27] going to achieve the 300 first of all.
[15:29] Um and then what's going to happen if
[15:31] the state says oh you have to do it and
[15:33] like well you can't make private
[15:35] citizens do what they don't want to do.
[15:36] So I I think what's the the challenge I
[15:39] see is actually at town council level um
[15:42] dealing with if the state decides to get
[15:44] draconian about you know thou shalt meet
[15:46] our goals um because I do think that the you know the town through these
[15:50] different processes have found a way to
[15:52] you know allow this to expand if we
[15:55] would but I just don't see anybody doing
[15:56] it. Um so I really see the challenge
[15:58] really on town council shoulders and
[16:00] less on some of the planning
[16:01] commissions.
[16:04] » Any other questions?
[16:07] you know, you you kind of hit on this
[16:09] out of the gates uh with your timing uh
[16:11] and why this is a good time for you to
[16:13] be able to give back. Uh you know, we
[16:16] had um as we do every time we do
[16:19] appointments, we had the attendance
[16:21] records sent to everybody on council and
[16:24] it was elucidating in a couple ways. One
[16:26] is that the planning commission is
[16:27] probably meeting 12 to 14 times a year
[16:30] now. So maybe every other meeting or so
[16:32] is almost canled at this point.
[16:34] >> Yeah. So there's a question there about
[16:37] maybe ultimately as subjective design
[16:38] review changes what can be absorbed from
[16:40] ASRB and we'll we'll see how that
[16:42] unfolds. That's not the question. Um but
[16:44] people in general because they live busy
[16:46] lives with work and family and town um
[16:50] missing three or four meetings a year
[16:51] out of those 12 to 14 and we only have
[16:53] five people on the council uh
[16:55] commission. So, um, your ability, you
[16:58] think, to meet, uh, the obligation, if
[17:01] you will, to be at these meetings
[17:03] engaged and informed and in attendance,
[17:06] I I'm just getting to know you a little
[17:08] bit, so I just I don't know. But, uh,
[17:10] how do you sort of think about how
[17:11] you're going to approach this and
[17:13] >> in terms of being engaged?
[17:14] >> Really, it's a a a it's about
[17:15] priorities, just sort of putting on the
[17:17] calendar and sort of mapping out sort of
[17:18] work constraints around it.
[17:20] in person as much as possible. And if
[17:22] you're not in person, then you can
[17:23] always be on Zoom, which is, you know,
[17:24] great since pandemic. Um, and secondly,
[17:27] I I uh just sort of more about me is I I
[17:30] tend to sleep four or five hours a
[17:32] night, and that's my normal.
[17:33] >> Um, and so there's a lot of time to do
[17:36] things like, you know, review decks and
[17:38] review uh people's proposals. That's,
[17:42] you know, when the rest of the world is
[17:43] sleeping, I do that. Um, and so I really
[17:47] see there's if if there's a meeting
[17:49] coming up, I kind of have two hours in
[17:50] the morning to myself to sort of do what
[17:52] I need to do. Um, and so that's what I
[17:54] would envision covering the research
[17:56] part because it is important for the
[17:58] planning commission to actually read um,
[18:00] everything and actually interact with
[18:02] the building and planning uh,
[18:03] departments of town to make sure you
[18:05] have the right questions asked so you're
[18:07] not coming in with one thought and then
[18:09] you're completely missing the actual
[18:11] point of the application. So I agree. I
[18:14] think it's possible.
[18:15] >> Thank you. Insomnia has
[18:17] >> and one and one less kid is so much
[18:19] time.
[18:20] >> It's what?
[18:21] >> So much time.
[18:23] My uh my my 18-year-old just is uh he
[18:26] takes he takes a lot of effort.
[18:28] >> Yeah. So, I get it. I'm a new empty
[18:29] neester myself. So, uh it's unbelievable
[18:32] what you can get done when you don't
[18:33] have children around. Um okay. Any other
[18:36] questions for Mr. Evans?
[18:39] Okay. Thank you. Well, Mr. Gar seeking
[18:43] reappoint, sir. Commissioner Gar.
[18:47] >> Hello.
[18:47] >> Hi.
[18:50] » So, why do you want to be reappointed,
[18:52] Mr. Gar?
[18:52] >> Why do I want to be reappointed? Um,
[18:54] I've had a lot of fun the last four
[18:56] years, plus or minus. Um, I mean, no, on
[18:59] a on a serious note, I mean, it's it's
[19:00] been, I think, a pleasure to to serve
[19:02] the town on on planning commission. Um,
[19:06] you know, a number of different issues.
[19:07] I think number one housing element has
[19:09] been
[19:11] it's been it's been interesting right um
[19:13] just balancing the needs of of the town
[19:16] to the state uh has been quite the uh
[19:19] quite the experience so to speak but I I
[19:22] think you know Woodside is is is is sort
[19:26] of going through what I what I think is
[19:27] an evolution in terms of how we respond
[19:30] um it's gone from you know when I joined
[19:33] it was in the wake of of some of the
[19:34] national news stories that we had
[19:37] and and I think we've found a little bit
[19:38] more pragmatic spot uh in terms of of
[19:42] where we sit. So, you know, in the time
[19:43] on the council, we've looked at or
[19:45] excuse me, commission. I've looked at
[19:48] how we approach more housing through
[19:50] things like ADUs. I've been through, you
[19:52] know, all of the the passionate
[19:54] discussions on multif family housing,
[19:56] where does that live, etc. Uh no pun
[19:59] intended. And and I think we're not done
[20:02] with that work, right? So I I still
[20:04] looking at things and as I've said in
[20:06] some of the meetings I think you know
[20:08] what is it six years from now we're
[20:10] still in a really bad spot and where you
[20:13] know if we look at the restrictions on
[20:15] building a town center for example uh we
[20:17] just don't have really a solution. We've
[20:21] sort of maxed out what we can do with
[20:23] the suboptimal sites that nobody was
[20:25] happy about. Uh, and so I'm, you know,
[20:27] quite passionate about both serving on
[20:28] the the TECAP as well as on planning
[20:31] commission to kind of work our ways
[20:32] through that. Um, so those are the
[20:33] things that I find kind of most most
[20:36] interesting and want to, you know,
[20:37] continue to represent um the talent on those aspects. And there's also, you
[20:42] know, the more kind of day-to-day
[20:43] projects as well.
[20:46] Uh, for those, I feel like in general,
[20:48] it's it's important to have a, you know,
[20:50] relatively objective approach to those
[20:53] and and be predictable. and that's what
[20:54] I try to do on the council or excuse me
[20:56] on the commission and and would like to
[20:58] continue to do that.
[21:00] >> Wonderful. Thank you.
[21:01] >> Welcome.
[21:02] >> Questions for Commissioner Gar?
[21:08] » In the spirit of fairness, I'll ask you
[21:09] the same question I asked uh Mr. Evans.
[21:11] So uh as you are well aware, there's
[21:14] been a ton of work done in the last few
[21:16] years to get to the point of having of
[21:18] having a housing element. what's your
[21:20] perspective on the next few years um
[21:23] where the attention is now turned to
[21:25] housing element compliance and and
[21:27] implementation?
[21:28] >> Yeah, I mean I think there's I think
[21:30] there's actually two main parts to that.
[21:32] There's what we do with the the one that
[21:33] we have now, you know, had uh had gone
[21:36] through and also how we prep for the
[21:38] next cycle. So, I think on the I I'll
[21:41] take the next cycle first, which is I
[21:43] mean I think they're making sure that we
[21:46] get something out of the the TCAP. Uh
[21:49] you know, there's going to I mean, my
[21:51] personal view on this is there's going
[21:52] to need to be some decisions made or
[21:55] potentially voter initiatives to just
[21:57] kind of change the the sort of overly
[22:00] constrained problem set for for how we,
[22:02] you know, set ourselves up for success
[22:04] next time around. I think we heard from
[22:06] a lot of um folks in the town how just I
[22:10] mean no one likes the outcome or I don't
[22:12] want to say no one but a lot of people
[22:14] don't like the outcome. So I want to
[22:15] make sure that we that we take those
[22:17] steps and frankly don't have what
[22:19] happened the last time we did a town
[22:22] center plan and it didn't really yield
[22:24] anything. So I think we need to kind of
[22:25] do better. Um so that's that's kind of
[22:28] one thing. Um, on the the other bit, I
[22:33] mean, we obviously need to
[22:36] make progress on the on the uh the sites
[22:38] where the zoning has been has been
[22:40] passed. Um, we all know that each of
[22:42] those sites also isn't necessarily like
[22:44] they they all have their challenges.
[22:46] >> Uh, so I think
[22:49] I don't know exactly how we do that. Uh,
[22:52] but you know figuring out do we proceed
[22:56] with them? Is that the right set of of
[22:59] things? Do we look at other options and
[23:00] try to make substitutions? I mean, I've recently moved to to Ray Mundo and,
[23:05] you know, continued to look at the site
[23:06] there and you just look at like the
[23:08] economics of a a $2.5 million sewer
[23:10] connection and a uh a seismic fault that
[23:14] runs through the middle of the site and
[23:15] it's like, is this going to work? So,
[23:18] you know, we have these things, but I
[23:19] think we need to to look at each of them
[23:21] on its on its merits and figure out how
[23:22] we go forward. and if it doesn't pencil
[23:24] out, uh, we need to be willing to have
[23:26] the conversations, figure out what else
[23:27] to do.
[23:30] >> So, on behalf of District 2, welcome to
[23:32] District 2. Um, spanning from Wonderlick
[23:36] to Hutter to Edgewood Parks, most
[23:38] beautiful terrain in the country. Um,
[23:41] you mentioned the, uh, suboptimal sites
[23:44] and of course, Raundo is one of them.
[23:46] Um,
[23:47] >> you have moved within 500 ft of the
[23:50] property line of the density site there.
[23:52] So, you're going to presumably have to
[23:54] recuse in in that discussion. I'll look
[23:57] to Kai if that's correct. Yeah. So,
[24:01] >> uh
[24:02] it's a big issue for that neighborhood.
[24:04] On one hand, they're already represented
[24:06] by Commissioner Weaver.
[24:08] >> Uh but your neighbors are going to be, I
[24:11] guess, looking to you, too, and
[24:12] wondering, you know, what kind of voice
[24:14] you're going to be able to provide. And
[24:15] I'm just I It struck me as interesting.
[24:17] What
[24:19] >> are you okay with that? you're you're if
[24:21] you serve on planning, you'll have to
[24:23] recuse on one of the major sites in the
[24:25] housing element um in the coming forward
[24:27] period. It's one of many issues, but it
[24:28] is it's going to be a polarizing issue
[24:31] for the neighborhood you moved into.
[24:33] >> Yeah. I mean, am I okay with it? It kind
[24:35] of it I kind of have to be because I
[24:37] don't think there's any that that's the
[24:40] you know, that's that's the that's the nature of the situation. I mean, I
[24:43] certainly you know, forget with recusing
[24:47] if I can I believe you can still
[24:48] participate as a private citizen. So,
[24:50] you know, I would would be looking to do
[24:52] that. You know, of course, to the to the
[24:53] extent that it's ethical and feasible.
[24:56] Um, you know, it's interesting also, I
[24:58] remember, you know, folks
[25:00] uh during the original meetings talking
[25:02] about, you know, the if you lived here,
[25:04] it' be different. And I've been
[25:05] reflecting on that a lot as well.
[25:06] >> And it's interesting. I mean, my my
[25:08] personal point of view on it is like we
[25:10] still have an obligation to the state.
[25:11] If it's it's, you know, adjacent to
[25:14] where I live, you know, so so be it as
[25:16] well. Um but I think you know what I
[25:18] would try to bring to that is just I
[25:21] mean finding the right the right
[25:22] solution whether that's is it that site
[25:25] is it other sites uh or if it is that
[25:27] site that we find kind of the best you
[25:29] know design and it it still is as close
[25:32] to the um general plan as possible.
[25:36] >> Great. Thank you.
[25:37] >> Yeah. Any other questions for
[25:39] Commissioner Gar?
[25:41] >> All right. Seeing none, we will just
[25:43] open public comment. We received a lot
[25:46] of uh wonderful notes endorsing our
[25:48] candidates, but are there any members of
[25:49] the public here or in the Zoom room that
[25:51] would like to make any additional
[25:52] comments in the appointment process?
[26:00] Okay. Well, seeing none, uh do we have a
[26:03] motion? The council
[26:06] >> like to move to approve the appointments
[26:08] of uh Mr. Evans and Mr. Gar to the
[26:10] planning commission.
[26:11] >> Second.
[26:13] >> Council member Alberish. Yes.
[26:14] >> Council member Brown.
[26:15] >> Yes.
[26:16] >> Council member Gold. Yes. Council member
[26:18] Wall. Mayor Donowski.
[26:20] >> Yes. Thank you. Uh, Commissioners Gar
[26:22] and Evan, welcome. Congratulations.
[26:23] You've got a big job ahead of you. So,
[26:25] we look forward to working with you and
[26:26] thanks for your willingness to serve the
[26:29] community of Woodside. So, welcome
[26:31] aboard.
[26:33] Okay,
[26:35] moving right along. Um,
[26:38] town manager report, Mr. Lead Better.
[26:40] >> Yeah, thank you, Mr. for mayor and uh
[26:42] the Woodside Town Council. So, town
[26:45] staff has received word from
[26:47] Representative Licardo's office that the
[26:49] town will be receiving $250,000
[26:53] for a bridge project that was submitted
[26:56] for um a few months before my start
[26:58] date. I think there's a little bit of
[27:00] confusion and so I'll touch base with
[27:02] public works um about which bridge
[27:06] exactly is is to be funded. Uh the town
[27:10] has been receiving a lot of
[27:11] communication about poor driving
[27:12] decisions and close calls in front of
[27:14] the uh Woodside Elementary School during
[27:16] drop off. And so the sheriff's office
[27:18] has been making their presence felt at
[27:20] this location based off of uh the
[27:23] engagement and and uh videos that were
[27:25] being provided by the school. Uh we are
[27:28] working with good city to finalize a
[27:30] date and it looks like March or April
[27:33] based off of some other needs we have
[27:35] for the council uh for an update by Good
[27:39] City on the TCAP coming to town council.
[27:42] Once again, that'll be either in March
[27:44] or April.
[27:46] On the evening of February 3rd, I did
[27:48] attend the Woodside Hills HOA meeting
[27:51] with fire with the fire marshall from
[27:53] the fire protection district. I give an
[27:55] update just on town operations as
[27:57] pertaining to that district and kind of
[27:59] the sphere of influence around that
[28:00] district. And then the focal point was
[28:03] on uh the instigation of the contract
[28:06] that you guys had signed in the past to
[28:08] do vegetation removal along the right of
[28:10] way is going to start on Woodside Road
[28:12] in the coming month.
[28:14] The town uh continues to receive uh
[28:17] inquiries and interest into a more
[28:20] aggressive approach to code enforcement
[28:22] with a couple abandoned properties in
[28:25] Woodside as well. That's all I have this
[28:27] evening.
[28:28] >> Thank you. Questions for Mr. Led Better?
[28:35] Hearing none, any public comment on any
[28:36] of those items?
[28:39] Seeing none, we will close the report.
[28:42] Thank you.
[28:44] Uh, next up, consent calendar. Moving
[28:46] right along this evening. Uh, all items
[28:48] on the consent are considered routine,
[28:49] will be approved with one roll call
[28:51] motion unless an item is pulled and and
[28:54] transferred to the regular agenda or
[28:56] just pulled for further discussion by
[28:57] council. Are there any member any any
[29:00] items on the consent agenda that any
[29:03] member of council would like to pull for
[29:04] further discussion? Two and three. Wow.
[29:08] Okay. Uh, can we get a motion on item
[29:12] one
[29:14] to pass item one?
[29:16] >> We'll move to pass item one.
[29:20] >> Register of demand.
[29:21] >> So, I will move to pass a register of
[29:24] demands against the town Woodside from
[29:27] January 16 through January 31, 2026.
[29:33] » I'll second. Thank you.
[29:34] >> Council member Aberish.
[29:36] >> Yes.
[29:36] >> Council member Brown.
[29:37] >> Yes.
[29:37] >> Council member Gold. Yes,
[29:39] >> Council Member Wall.
[29:41] >> Mayor Donowski.
[29:42] >> Yes. Moving in order. Uh, item number
[29:44] two, Council Member Wall.
[29:46] >> Okay, I think this one should be pretty
[29:47] quick. Um, so item two is approval of a
[29:50] records and information management
[29:52] policy and updated records retention
[29:54] schedule. I thought the staff report
[29:56] gave um an excellent summary of the
[29:58] background, but I was just hoping uh the
[30:00] town manager um could kind of give an
[30:02] exact summary of the policy and the new
[30:04] policy and the retention schedule.
[30:08] Uh yeah, I don't know if I'll be able to
[30:10] give you a summary. Ultimately, it was a
[30:12] an an item that started or predates me.
[30:15] And so, a consultant was hired uh to
[30:17] come in and work with not just myself,
[30:20] but the the attorney's office and then
[30:22] every department had through the clerk's
[30:25] office ultimately uh participated over
[30:29] the last I'd say um predating me. So, uh
[30:33] over the last year, I believe on this
[30:35] policy. We do have the gentleman that
[30:37] helped curate this policy, I believe,
[30:39] available to answer any questions, but
[30:41] ultimately uh I don't think that I would
[30:43] be capable of summarizing the policy. We
[30:46] will be rolling the policy out with uh
[30:49] two major events, I guess you can say.
[30:51] We have a records issue here ultimately.
[30:54] Uh we need to really clean out the
[30:57] office and make a determination as to
[30:59] what is redundant and what needs to meet
[31:02] within the policy on being stored. And
[31:04] so you guys at the last meeting had
[31:06] approved um staff augmentation and so
[31:09] we're meeting with CSG tomorrow uh to go
[31:11] over this policy and kind of explain our
[31:13] needs to uh the possibility of that
[31:16] part-time employee and then staff is
[31:18] currently working on a basically a
[31:21] spring clean where we will incorporate
[31:24] rolling out this policy with the staff
[31:26] in in August. But um I don't know if
[31:30] there's any specific questions I can
[31:31] answer for you. But ultimately I don't
[31:33] think that the town didn't have a policy
[31:35] in the past is my understanding. So this
[31:37] is the first policy and then we just had
[31:38] a spreadsheet where we had really
[31:41] records retention probably longer than
[31:43] required by the state of California
[31:45] based off of different desires with uh
[31:48] internally with staff. And so this
[31:50] policy really incorporates everybody's
[31:52] needs from each individual department uh
[31:55] and then validates that based off of the
[31:58] consultant that we're meet in the town
[32:00] attorney's office that we are actually
[32:01] complying by uh state law.
[32:09] » Would you like to motion?
[32:11] >> Yes. Um
[32:13] >> so I wasn't planning on bringing this
[32:14] up. Thanks for public records issues.
[32:19] So, it comes up a lot that we get, well,
[32:21] not a lot, there's lots of public um
[32:24] records request um that come up. Almost
[32:27] everything we do now is digital
[32:29] electronic. It's hard to think of
[32:31] anything that's that's not available
[32:33] that way. Um and for us, it's mostly
[32:36] emails and we're very sensitive about
[32:39] that. I just have a question. If I
[32:41] delete an email from my thing, is that
[32:42] still retained by the town?
[32:45] >> Email is not a part of this policy
[32:47] actually. So ultimately that's still a
[32:49] question I think that um we probably
[32:52] need direction on primarily with uh the
[32:55] town council and that very specific
[32:57] issue. So
[32:58] >> uh email to my understanding is is not a
[33:01] part of this um policy.
[33:03] >> We should get an answer to that question
[33:04] though. I mean I don't
[33:07] >> it's we do. So
[33:09] >> yeah, there I believe that there is a
[33:10] legality to uh the deletion of email and
[33:13] I would refer to uh the town attorney on
[33:16] what that is with the state.
[33:18] >> All right, thank you.
[33:20] >> Take a shot.
[33:21] >> I can sure
[33:22] >> uh operationally I can't speak to how
[33:24] the town system works but uh emails are
[33:28] public record and should be retained for
[33:29] two years.
[33:32] >> Got that. But my question is when I
[33:34] delete something and I don't but when I
[33:36] delete something
[33:38] >> is it still retained by the town?
[33:40] >> That's a you don't know.
[33:41] >> I don't know the answer.
[33:42] >> That we that's the question I've got is
[33:44] >> um we'll work
[33:46] >> about not deleting things.
[33:47] >> I'll follow up with it on uh on what
[33:51] that looks like and I'll get back to you
[33:52] on a staff memo. Just anecdotally,
[33:55] having had conversations about that
[33:57] issue in the past, uh not with Jason,
[34:00] but with the previous town manager, I
[34:02] believe there is some level of
[34:05] retention. Even if an email is deleted,
[34:08] it goes into a deleted folder for a
[34:10] period of time.
[34:11] >> I would have to think that too, but I
[34:12] just wanted to confirm it. Thank you.
[34:14] >> Maybe just a follow-up question. So that
[34:16] strikes me as a little strange that
[34:18] email wouldn't be a part of our records
[34:20] retention policy. And just glancing at
[34:22] the the section five that talks about
[34:24] the types of records, it says,
[34:25] "According to California state law, a
[34:27] record includes any writing containing
[34:29] information relating to the conduct of
[34:31] the public's business."
[34:34] » Yeah, I'm not sure uh if the clerk
[34:37] wanted to chime in on this. I know based
[34:38] off our our engagement on this item uh
[34:41] that ultimately there's kind of a
[34:43] conflict with what the um the consensus
[34:46] within the organization I think we have
[34:48] some members that really want to retain
[34:50] email really in perpetuity to be able to
[34:52] pull from it. And so I don't think we
[34:54] got clear definition on email is kind of
[34:57] my understanding within the within the
[34:59] policy. Is is that accurate? Jim
[35:02] >> Bruce is here if he wants to talk about
[35:05] it.
[35:05] >> Oh okay. Okay. Well, we can go directly
[35:07] to the consultant on this.
[35:10] >> Okay. Mr. Meyer, going to recognize you
[35:13] here. Welcome.
[35:15] >> Thank you. I'm glad.
[35:16] >> Yes.
[35:18] >> You know, when uh you mentioned that
[35:20] email um when you hit delete, it is not
[35:22] truly gone yet. Especially if uh if the
[35:27] city is uh is backing up the Exchange
[35:30] server. Technically,
[35:33] the email is not gone when you hit
[35:35] delete. Reality says, as far as we're
[35:38] concerned, it's gone. But the the the
[35:42] flip side of that is we don't
[35:44] necessarily have approval to delete that
[35:46] email. Um, as uh the city attorney said,
[35:51] uh
[35:53] it should be kept for 2 years. Now, that
[35:56] means something that really has more of
[35:58] an official side to it. Uh, if you
[36:00] determine that an email has value and
[36:03] create a record out of it, I can see
[36:05] that as being kept for two years. But in
[36:08] all reality, mama's recipe for, you
[36:10] know, chocolate chip cookies from 1988,
[36:14] we don't really care about that.
[36:17] Does that make sense?
[36:21] » Yeah. So, you're maybe just going back
[36:23] to the first question. Is is email a
[36:25] subject to this policy?
[36:28] I don't believe we have it as a subject
[36:29] of the policy yet because we didn't make
[36:31] a determination on it. It's it's a very
[36:34] hot bed subject.
[36:37] Uh you talk to most people and two years
[36:39] can be a fine term. You talk to
[36:42] engineers and they'll scream at you
[36:43] because projects tend to go on a lot
[36:46] longer than just 2 years. So the
[36:50] reference back to that information is
[36:52] essential. Now, that brings into play
[36:55] determining again when an email can be
[36:57] considered a record and creating a
[36:59] record out of it. Whether that's
[37:00] creating a a PDF, printing it to PDF,
[37:04] printing it to paper, um uh dragging and
[37:07] dropping it into laser fish as a record.
[37:11] You're creating that record out of it
[37:13] and storing in a repository or outside
[37:16] of the email system which has never been
[37:20] a uh a document management software
[37:24] setup. Um laserfish is the core setup
[37:29] for the city. So anything that's dragged
[37:32] and dropped into that would be created a
[37:34] record.
[37:36] Uh the remaining emails can for the most
[37:38] part be transitory. That's that's what I
[37:41] see as a majority of emails maintained
[37:43] by an individual are transitory in
[37:46] nature. They have some value. There may
[37:48] not be a final decision made on that
[37:50] email and when it is, it's up to the
[37:53] individual. So, it is very subjective uh
[37:55] to create the record out of that uh out
[37:58] of that email.
[38:00] >> Okay. Sounds like we have some work
[38:02] ahead of us. Um are we are we uh are we
[38:05] okay with the motion this this point?
[38:12] I am personally still confused and maybe
[38:14] it's just me. I just I really just want
[38:15] to understand is email considered a
[38:18] record under this policy or are we are
[38:20] we not clear on that?
[38:24] >> I I'd like to go ahead and chime in. I
[38:25] mean I think it's considered a record on
[38:27] some level but we don't have a current
[38:29] retention policy or we don't have a
[38:31] retention lined up. Now the policy
[38:33] references email but we don't have a
[38:35] schedule on retention for email is my
[38:37] understanding.
[38:41] » Okay. So we probably will we'll be
[38:42] coming back to the council to amend this
[38:45] policy once we have a point of view on
[38:47] email retention.
[38:49] >> Yes.
[38:51] >> Amend that too. That's um again it's a
[38:53] hot subject. People will be angry about
[38:56] it but it's also forcing the individual
[38:59] to determine whether an email is a
[39:01] record or not. and creating a record out
[39:03] of it. the system in itself based upon
[39:08] you know uh for instance the city of San
[39:10] Jose and their uh their case against
[39:14] texts and other social media aspects
[39:18] technically email can be considered a
[39:20] record but I think again it's so
[39:23] subjective because I is a transitory is an ad considered uh a record when it
[39:30] comes to email not necessarily it's
[39:32] really more business related material
[39:34] materials, but we all get ads of some
[39:37] sort or notifications from whomever.
[39:44] » Um, I was just looking at the looking
[39:46] through the policy and it looks like
[39:47] under 5.5 there is a section for email
[39:50] communication. So, um, I think that that
[39:54] would apply to everyone
[39:58] in town.
[40:00] >> That's Thank you for pointing that out.
[40:01] Sounds like email is in scope for this
[40:03] policy.
[40:06] >> It is in scope, but I don't think we
[40:07] have applied a a retention to it.
[40:11] It's more a notification and it is
[40:13] something we need to discuss and develop
[40:14] a you know a little bit more of a policy
[40:16] to it. Whether that's a separate policy
[40:18] from this one or um integrated into it,
[40:22] but we need to make a decision on that.
[40:29] Can I just Can I just say one thing?
[40:32] >> Um, of course
[40:33] >> the town the town absolutely has a
[40:36] retention schedule that includes email.
[40:38] >> Um, we've had that for as long as I've
[40:41] been with the town. I think this policy
[40:44] is geared towards building an
[40:47] operational system
[40:50] to help implement that schedule, which
[40:52] is what the town has not had. And so
[40:54] it's been kind of just left to staff to
[40:56] figure out how to retain the records in
[40:59] the SK according to the schedule without
[41:01] any sort of operational guidance. So
[41:04] however long ago it was this process
[41:07] started try and build this operational
[41:10] document uh and that's what we have
[41:13] here. But I want to be clear that the
[41:15] town does have a retention schedule that
[41:18] includes email along with all other
[41:20] public documents.
[41:22] >> Thank you.
[41:28] Well, we need a motion.
[41:32] You
[41:32] >> want me to make a motion?
[41:33] >> Somebody can make a motion.
[41:34] >> I'll move to approve uh a record uh move
[41:38] to approve a records and information
[41:41] management policy and updated records
[41:43] retention schedule.
[41:47] » Second you.
[41:49] >> Council member Alberish.
[41:50] >> Yes. Council member Brown.
[41:51] >> Yes. Council member Gold.
[41:54] >> Abstain.
[41:54] >> Council member Wall.
[41:56] >> Yes.
[41:56] >> Mayor Donowski.
[41:58] >> Yeah.
[41:59] >> Okay. Um, slowly working our way
[42:02] through, but important stuff. Uh, item
[42:04] three.
[42:05] >> Yes. Council member
[42:06] >> Brown.
[42:07] >> This is a project that to me is an
[42:09] example of fiscal insanity going wild.
[42:13] Um, we started this how many years ago?
[42:16] Four or five years ago, is that right?
[42:17] with $800,000 gift from the federal
[42:19] government to build bike paths. Calr
[42:24] actually built bike paths at no cost to
[42:26] us. Um and now we're not only saying the
[42:30] 800,000 is not enough. We need another
[42:32] $200,000
[42:34] to build bike paths on the same street.
[42:37] Uh somehow this is not making fiscal
[42:40] sense to me at all. And um I don't don't
[42:44] I understand there's some some reasons
[42:45] that bicyclists think that it's not
[42:48] quite good enough yet, but when is it
[42:50] will be good enough?
[42:54] » Yeah. So I'll chime in and then we'll
[42:56] kick it over to the public works
[42:57] director. Uh so yeah, we had an interest
[43:01] uh with the the town council directing
[43:04] staff to work with uh at that time we
[43:08] had Shawn Rose, our consultant, and a
[43:11] gentleman in the public, I don't think
[43:12] he's here this evening, uh Mr. Steve
[43:14] Luben, on some concerns that he had
[43:16] about this project. We articulated at
[43:19] that time that we felt any alteration
[43:22] was going to lead to the possibility of
[43:24] losing the funding with Calrans and and
[43:27] that more than likely it would it would
[43:29] result in increased uh cost for
[43:32] engineering. Um but ultimately there was
[43:35] a request to see if we can get a
[43:37] compromise um because there were some
[43:39] poor design choices I think or some
[43:42] design choices that never were really uh
[43:45] investigated that could have worked out
[43:46] better. And so uh with the consultant
[43:50] Shawn Rose and at the time Cindy Mala
[43:53] before Lewis joined us here uh they went
[43:56] back to the drawing board with NV5. We
[43:58] held the line on the cost and forced uh
[44:01] their hand to make alterations on work
[44:03] that they had already done that we felt
[44:05] um uh that ultimately we felt that they
[44:08] didn't really explore all of the opt
[44:09] options that were available with CALR on
[44:12] the CALR right of way and they did that
[44:14] and I believe now we've reached a point
[44:17] with Mr. lube in that we have a
[44:19] compromise that he's satisfied with that
[44:21] would cost us to finish that design just
[44:24] under $50,000 so that we could move
[44:27] forward. That's the ask. It's $48,700
[44:31] to an already existing contract to make
[44:33] it a not to exceed of the 210 value. So,
[44:36] uh, Lewis, if you can chime in and maybe
[44:38] broaden the scope of the conversation.
[44:42] >> Thank you, town manager. Lewis, public
[44:44] works director and town engineer. Um as
[44:47] we review the current plan, the 95% plan
[44:50] by MV5, um it is apparent that the
[44:53] current design has put the pedestrian uh
[44:56] multiath on the street on the pavement
[44:59] itself. And it is our expert opinion
[45:02] that we need to move this path um to uh
[45:07] on the other side of the curb out of the
[45:08] pavement um for safety. And this will be
[45:11] safety for not only the pedestrian but
[45:13] also the bicyclist and the motorists. Um
[45:16] and this design we believe it is my
[45:19] professional opinion that it it really
[45:21] uh would instill the spirit and the
[45:23] character of Woodside is putting u
[45:26] pedestrian and bicyclist and motorist
[45:29] safety at first. So, so this uh redesign
[45:33] uh is what we're asking. The $48,700 is
[45:36] an amendment to NV5 to redesign the
[45:40] current plan to put the multi- path in a safe uh area behind the curb out of
[45:47] the pavement.
[45:51] Is that going to cost us more than just
[45:53] the design cost? in other words is
[45:55] construction cost to make those changes
[45:58] going to be an additional cost. Um to
[46:01] answer council member Brown um yes the
[46:04] estimated uh in addition to construction
[46:06] costs right now is um is very
[46:10] conservative is about $300,000 in
[46:12] addition but we don't know that. Um it's
[46:15] just a estimate by the designer. Um but
[46:19] when it comes to the actual construction
[46:22] um it really depends on the climate in
[46:24] the bidding climate and see um but the
[46:26] current the redesign would also changes
[46:29] the drainage as well and that's we
[46:31] believe that's the bulk of that increase
[46:33] is redesigning um the storm drainage um
[46:36] and this reconfigure and also um you
[46:38] know moving some of the drainage um in a
[46:40] new location.
[46:42] So, are you saying it's going to be
[46:44] under 800,000 plus 300,000 construction
[46:48] cost plus the design costs? Is that what
[46:51] you're telling me?
[46:53] That's correct. Yeah. Um, as right now
[46:56] there's a 300,000 um estimate of
[46:59] increase in construction costs and and
[47:01] today's ask we're asking for an
[47:03] amendment to the design 48,700. That's
[47:06] also in addition to that's correct.
[47:11] Am I the only one troubled by that?
[47:14] >> Well, I think we asked for this. Um, and
[47:18] the improvements do end us in a better
[47:20] place for the long term. So,
[47:22] >> I'm not sure we were talking about
[47:24] another 300,000 construction.
[47:26] >> I I I'm not here.
[47:27] >> I don't remember that.
[47:28] >> I I hear you. Um, but kind of feel like
[47:32] we got to do it right, I guess, is where
[47:34] I'm coming from.
[47:37] » But when do we start drawing where
[47:39] you're coming from? This is insane.
[47:44] Are you in deliberations right now? Is
[47:45] this still a question?
[47:46] >> Uh, yeah. We We're just Yeah.
[47:49] And then you have Do you have questions?
[47:51] >> No. I was gonna
[47:54] >> Sure. Any member of the public want to
[47:57] talk on this?
[47:59] >> Yes. Son, welcome.
[48:09] Uh, hi Council Assan Farande, uh,
[48:12] circulation committee chair. Um, couple
[48:14] thoughts on this one. First, I strongly
[48:16] support the project. I think the fact
[48:17] that again, we can't walk from here to
[48:18] the high school that serves our town is an oversight. And I think it was nice
[48:22] that during COVID, you know, we we got
[48:23] the $100,000 grant and we remembered it
[48:26] and now we're hopefully not going to
[48:27] lose it. Um, the thing that's annoying
[48:29] to me is the consultants who designed it
[48:31] came to circulation and we specifically
[48:33] asked them the question, can you put it
[48:35] outside? Because to Dan Duker's credit,
[48:37] he found that 20 years ago or something,
[48:39] there was a a gravel pathway outside the
[48:41] curb and every time I drive by there
[48:42] now, I can't help but stare at it and be
[48:43] like, man, if you gave me a week and my gardening tools, I could have most of
[48:47] it cleared. We asked them that question.
[48:49] They specifically said, "No, it will not
[48:52] work out there." And then there was
[48:53] something about SQA environmental stuff,
[48:55] blah blah blah. And it turns out they
[48:58] were wrong. So to Steve Lubman's credit,
[48:59] and Steve, if you're here listening to
[49:00] me, you were correct. I appreciate it. I
[49:02] appreciate your tenacity on it. Um, I
[49:04] appreciate Sean helping and helping
[49:05] figure out. Lewis, thank you for getting
[49:06] involved as well. But it's a little
[49:08] frustrating that now we're being asked
[49:10] for another almost $50,000 to correct
[49:12] the mistake they made with their own
[49:14] expert opinion in mistake basically,
[49:17] right? I don't think you have a choice,
[49:18] so I'm not saying you shouldn't do it.
[49:20] Um, I do think the project is very
[49:21] worthwhile. Hopefully, it's not a
[49:22] $300,000 adder on top of the 800. Um,
[49:25] but when you drive by there, it's like
[49:27] that is the most elegant solution. They
[49:28] claimed they walked every inch of it and
[49:31] somehow I don't know what assumptions
[49:32] they were working under that led them to
[49:34] where they are. So hopefully at least
[49:35] maybe we've negotiated a discount rate
[49:37] compared to the work they have to do or
[49:39] something along those lines. So despite
[49:41] my rambling thing, I fully support the
[49:43] project. I think that is the elegant
[49:45] solution. It is just frustrating that
[49:46] they designed it wrong and then people
[49:49] had to get involved to fix it even
[49:50] though they were the experts and I gave
[49:52] them the benefit of the doubt. So shame
[49:53] on me. I'll be more diligent on that
[49:54] next time. But they st said, "Nope, we
[49:56] can't put it where you're telling us to
[49:57] put it."
[49:58] clear that was wrong. So again, thank
[49:59] you.
[50:01] >> Thank you for that context,
[50:05] Miss Gilbert.
[50:07] >> Uh
[50:09] hello is on. Okay.
[50:13] I'm I what I'm hearing is that we're
[50:16] going to pave
[50:18] all around for bicyclists. Is that what
[50:20] you said? You you said a lot, so I
[50:23] really am a little confused. So right
[50:26] now the um the pedestrian path is on the
[50:30] road sharing that road with the bicycle
[50:32] lane. So it's all on the same road. Um
[50:35] what we want to do is redesign it to put
[50:37] the pedestrian path out of the road and
[50:40] put it on behind the curb.
[50:44] >> Where where are you talking about? What land along Woodside Road here?
[50:48] >> On Woodside Road east of 280 to the high
[50:51] school. To the high school
[50:53] >> to the high school. Okay.
[50:56] All right. We're not putting this
[50:58] through the town, though. We're not
[51:01] contemplating that. I hope.
[51:03] >> No, it's just it's just from 280 down to
[51:05] the Alamita.
[51:07] >> All right.
[51:08] I'm going to keep this now. I can tell
[51:10] Bill, go get me something.
[51:12] >> I think you're going to have to hand it
[51:13] off to Mr. Duker.
[51:17] » Thanks.
[51:17] >> So, uh, just representing the, um, three
[51:21] HOAs east of 280. Um the residents are
[51:24] big time in favor of this project that we're getting a little confused
[51:27] about the bicycle topic. The discussion
[51:30] today is about a pedestrian path. So
[51:32] it's allowing people to walk on the
[51:34] south side of Woodside Road from
[51:37] effectively 280 to the high school with
[51:39] a vision that in the next couple of
[51:41] years you'll connect that to town
[51:42] center. So you'll be able to walk from
[51:44] the high school all the way to town
[51:45] center. Um Ean's correct. We were told
[51:48] in circulation that the pedestrian
[51:50] pathway had to be effectively attached
[51:53] to the road and pushed into the bike
[51:54] lane even a little bit. We learned in
[51:56] the last month that that's not true,
[51:58] that that was incorrect. So the original
[52:00] routing we had all hoped for is what
[52:01] we're going to end up with. It looks
[52:02] like um Lewis and I went and walked it
[52:04] this morning. So we spent an hour
[52:06] together walking the road down there
[52:08] today. And what he has planned is going
[52:10] to be a very attractive and very useful
[52:12] addition to the town. So, it'll be a
[52:14] nice decomposed grait gravel or asphalt
[52:17] pathway that is just inside
[52:21] um on the side of on the side of
[52:22] Woodside Road on the south side. I think
[52:23] it's going to look great and certainly
[52:25] lots of residents will use it. Um my
[52:27] guess is I it's hard for me to imagine
[52:29] it'll cost more than what they're
[52:31] planning. So, I'm really interested in
[52:33] the the estimate if it cost more money
[52:35] because now you don't have to go
[52:36] reconfigure all the curbs that were just
[52:37] put in by CALR. So, it's just literally
[52:40] restoring a pathway that's already there
[52:42] and just opening it back up again. So,
[52:44] I'm hoping there will be a solution that
[52:46] actually saves us money, not adds on
[52:49] additional funding.
[52:51] >> Thank you.
[52:54] >> Any other comments from public? All very
[52:57] useful tonight. Thank you very much.
[52:59] Okay, back to deliberations. Council
[53:03] member Aberish. Um, yeah, I I feel like
[53:06] this is I mean, I appreciate uh Council
[53:10] Member Brown's comments and thoughts and
[53:12] I totally agree. Uh, I think we always
[53:14] have to be uh very aware and careful
[53:17] with expanding costs. Um, here I feel
[53:20] like we're getting, you know, $800,000
[53:23] of essentially free money. So, we're
[53:25] going to be able to do this project for,
[53:28] my math is correct, about it'll be, you
[53:30] know, total of a million and a half
[53:33] dollar project. And we're going to be
[53:34] paying
[53:36] a little over close to 500,000 from the
[53:39] town actually. Is that my numbers
[53:42] correct? Something along those lines.
[53:45] >> I think there's me there's different
[53:46] measures and road money that will be
[53:48] funding this project. But yeah,
[53:50] essentially that's $800,000 of uh
[53:52] federal funding. Um and then ultimately
[53:55] any of the overages we would be timing
[53:58] out to fit into our our budget and CIP.
[54:02] >> Yeah. So I, you know, I think we're
[54:04] getting a big benefit. We're not paying
[54:05] for the whole thing. Um, but we'll get
[54:07] the full benefit of it. And I think it's
[54:09] a huge value to everyone who lives um,
[54:13] you know, in that area. I think I
[54:17] remember when we talked about this last
[54:18] time, it came up and there were a lot of
[54:20] people that were really looking forward
[54:22] to this project and so yeah, so I I'd
[54:25] support it.
[54:26] >> Great. Thank you. Other comments from
[54:28] council?
[54:32] make a motion.
[54:33] >> I would love to have a motion. Dick, do
[54:35] you want to make a motion or do you want
[54:36] someone else to make it?
[54:37] >> I think somebody else should make I'll
[54:39] make a a motion to approve the
[54:41] resolution authorizing the town manager
[54:43] to execute a contract amendment with NV5
[54:45] in an amount of $48,700
[54:48] and not to exceed a total of $210,38
[54:53] for the design of Woodside Road Bicycle
[54:55] and Pedestrian Improvements Project.
[54:58] >> Second.
[54:59] >> Council member Alberish. Yes.
[55:00] >> Council member Brown.
[55:01] >> No.
[55:02] >> Council member Gold.
[55:03] >> Yes.
[55:03] >> Council member Wall.
[55:05] >> Yes.
[55:05] >> Mayor Donowski.
[55:07] >> Yes.
[55:10] >> And with that, we'll close the consent
[55:11] agenda. And moving on to old business,
[55:15] quarterly and annual review of license
[55:16] plate readers. I I just thought maybe I
[55:19] would say one thing real quick just for
[55:20] expectational reasons. Um just to
[55:24] clarify things. Um this is agendaized.
[55:27] It's agendaized as reviewing the reports
[55:29] and deciding whether to accept the
[55:31] reports. Per our contract, there is no
[55:33] vote tonight on deployment of license
[55:35] plate readers. Although in
[55:37] deliberations, any member of the council
[55:39] can make a motion to uh for direction,
[55:42] future direction. So that might be
[55:44] something that comes out of that. But
[55:45] this is the extent of what we can uh do
[55:47] tonight on this topic uh and what we'll
[55:49] effectively be voting on um at the end
[55:51] of it. So Jason, with that I know we've
[55:54] got a lot going on and you have brought
[55:56] some significant resources to bear
[55:58] tonight. So I'll hand it off to you to
[55:59] talk about the report and introduce our
[56:01] leadership from the sheriff's office and
[56:03] uh representation from Flock.
[56:06] >> Yeah, thank you. I'll start with that
[56:07] actually. We have Assistant Sheriff
[56:09] Meyers here this evening. We have our
[56:11] administrative sergeant Nick Moragno
[56:14] here as well. and we have Lily uh with
[56:17] Flock as well to help answer any
[56:19] questions uh or any technical items that
[56:22] may come up. First, I just want to go
[56:23] over the attachments because there are
[56:25] quite a few. And so, attachment one on
[56:28] this report is the ALPR annual report
[56:32] that comes directly from the sheriff the
[56:35] sheriff's office. And this showcases
[56:37] roughly uh 5,027 hot list alerts that
[56:41] transpired over the year. um 4,031
[56:46] uh stolen license plates that went
[56:48] through the system, uh 38 stolen
[56:51] vehicles, 13 felony vehicles, and 945
[56:55] alerts for investigation.
[56:57] Two stolen vehicles were recovered in
[56:59] the Woodside ALPR system led to the
[57:01] arrest of four suspects involved in
[57:03] various crimes in the town of Woodside.
[57:05] More information about specific cases in
[57:08] Woodside are available in that specific
[57:10] attachment.
[57:11] In attachment two, uh this is the town
[57:14] of Woodside ALPR policy which dictates
[57:18] how myself or the the town manager audit
[57:22] uh how that audit is performed.
[57:25] Attachment three, this is the Sanonteo
[57:28] County Sheriff's Office quarterly
[57:30] report. This is where they choose the 10
[57:33] randomly searched uh searches to audit.
[57:37] And this is the document that I use to
[57:40] basically audit those 10 random searches
[57:43] on the quarterly report. So attachment 4
[57:48] is that quarterly audit report from me,
[57:52] the town manager. Uh and so we'll come
[57:56] back to that attachment uh after I'm
[57:58] done discussing the rest of these
[58:00] attachments.
[58:02] Attachment
[58:05] five is the Sanonteo County Sheriff's
[58:08] Office ALPR policy. This is when we have
[58:12] to look at our policy in relation to
[58:15] whoever did the search. If it's Sanonteo
[58:17] County Sheriff's Office, then we'll go
[58:19] to their policy to validate that they
[58:21] have a policy that matches ours. Uh,
[58:23] attachment six is the Sonteo Police
[58:26] Department's policy. Attachment seven is
[58:28] the Redwood City Police Department's
[58:30] policy. Um, and then attachment eight, I
[58:34] had two different council members
[58:35] contacting contact me asking me about
[58:37] the contract. So, for good measure, we
[58:39] added that as an attachment. And then
[58:42] attachment nine is the law enforcement
[58:44] contract that we have with the Sanonteo
[58:46] County Sheriff's Office. And so, back to
[58:49] attachment four, which is my quarterly
[58:51] audit report. So, we took into
[58:54] consideration some of the concerns that
[58:57] had been brought to the attention of the
[58:59] staff and the town itself prior to my
[59:02] existence uh here at in Woodside. And
[59:05] then over the last eight eight months,
[59:06] my engagement with the council uh we
[59:10] determined that there was kind of a
[59:12] deeper investigation or more of a
[59:13] narrative that people would like to see
[59:15] rather than just checking of the boxes.
[59:18] And so ultimately we sat down with at
[59:20] that time we we still had Captain Frank
[59:23] Delporto who is now um an assistant
[59:25] sheriff himself. We sat down with
[59:27] administrative sergeant uh Baragno and
[59:30] we went over each of the 10 audited uh inquiries that that the sheriff's
[59:37] office had looked at. We got on the same
[59:39] page to just better understand uh any
[59:42] missing pieces that we could not
[59:44] decipher from the information that was
[59:46] provided to us. And so I just want to
[59:48] slowly go over my attachment for the the
[59:52] ALPR quarterly report, the town manager
[59:54] audit, and just uh explain those
[59:57] differences. So
[59:59] we start within the policy comparing the
[1:00:02] audit with the policy section three and
[1:00:06] we go through section 10. And so section
[1:00:08] three is authorized purposes and
[1:00:10] prohibited uses. And so on inquiry one,
[1:00:13] we're claiming compliance with the
[1:00:15] information we have and we're stating
[1:00:17] that the reason is that is a that the uh
[1:00:21] Woodside ALPR system was utilized was
[1:00:24] because there was a stolen car and this
[1:00:27] reason complies with the town policy
[1:00:29] section 3 A C D and G and they're stated
[1:00:33] clearly as to what they are. We then go
[1:00:35] to section four of the policy where we
[1:00:38] discuss data storage and protection. And
[1:00:41] then uh in this section specifically is
[1:00:44] for flock and there's a requirement that
[1:00:46] the town received back from flock very
[1:00:48] specific data on encryption firewalls
[1:00:50] authentication and so the town has
[1:00:53] received that information and so
[1:00:55] confirming that uh to our understanding
[1:00:57] that's compliant as well. Then section
[1:01:00] five, we go into the ALPR data access.
[1:01:03] And so since this first inquiry was made
[1:01:06] by the San Mateo Police Department, we
[1:01:09] then compare our policy to their policy
[1:01:12] to see if the ALP our data access is
[1:01:16] compliant, if the two policies um jive
[1:01:19] with each other, and they in fact do.
[1:01:21] And so we go through each of those
[1:01:23] different those different sections of
[1:01:25] the policy 3 through 10 on each of the
[1:01:28] 10 inquiries that were randomly selected
[1:01:30] by the sheriff's office. And based on
[1:01:33] that, we have determined that within
[1:01:35] this quarter, we have compliance to our
[1:01:38] understanding. Now, we're making an
[1:01:39] inference here that ultimately the San
[1:01:42] Mo Police Department, the Redwood City
[1:01:44] Police Department, and the San Monteo
[1:01:46] County Sheriff's Office is complying
[1:01:48] with their own policies. So that's an
[1:01:50] inference that we have to make in good
[1:01:52] faith. And uh basically that really
[1:01:56] summarizes the quarterly report. The
[1:01:59] annual report is created by the
[1:02:01] sheriff's department and they're here to
[1:02:04] discuss any questions you may have on
[1:02:06] that. But the town staff, myself
[1:02:08] included, we've deemed that compliant as
[1:02:11] well. Now there has been talk obviously
[1:02:14] uh with what's transpiring with the
[1:02:16] company itself nationally and also
[1:02:18] locally and we're obviously very aware
[1:02:20] of that. Uh we're also aware or we
[1:02:23] believe that we may be the only agency
[1:02:26] locally that has such a robust policy
[1:02:28] and is meeting on a quarterly basis to
[1:02:31] discuss and kind of go over to make sure
[1:02:33] and continue to question the use of this
[1:02:36] technology in our community. I'm not
[1:02:38] aware of any other local agency that
[1:02:40] happens to be doing that. And so I think
[1:02:42] that that has served us very well
[1:02:44] because at the moment, you know, knock
[1:02:46] on wood, with all of the different
[1:02:48] agencies that are um being questioned
[1:02:51] for maybe uh data breaches, I am not
[1:02:54] familiar with any of the three agencies
[1:02:56] that we're currently working with being
[1:02:58] at the center of any of that
[1:03:00] controversy.
[1:03:01] Also, because this has been such a an
[1:03:04] important topic to the town of Woodside, has gone above and
[1:03:08] beyond to make sure that we're not on
[1:03:10] the canned contract with Flock. It was
[1:03:12] negotiated to make sure that we felt
[1:03:14] comfortable and that there were
[1:03:15] alterations made and that also we
[1:03:18] created a policy. And so, I think that
[1:03:20] we've created checks and balances here
[1:03:22] on some level that has led to maybe even
[1:03:25] better service. And so, uh, sitting down
[1:03:27] with the sheriff's office here in
[1:03:29] January, uh, Sergeant Baragno, I think
[1:03:33] based off of engagement, based off of
[1:03:35] understanding this council, went through
[1:03:37] every single inquiry that has ever hit
[1:03:40] the Town of Woodside ALPR system from
[1:03:43] inception up until the end of this these
[1:03:46] two reports and is stating to us that he
[1:03:49] sees absolutely no breach, that all of
[1:03:52] those were made by three different
[1:03:54] agencies. the Sanonteo County Sheriff's
[1:03:56] Office, Redwood City Police Department,
[1:03:58] and the San Monteo Police Department.
[1:04:01] And so for those reasons, we are stating
[1:04:03] um that we believe we are currently
[1:04:06] compliant.
[1:04:10] Thank you.
[1:04:12] Uh questions for staff or members of the
[1:04:16] sheriff's department or flock?
[1:04:23] Um I
[1:04:23] >> go for it.
[1:04:24] >> I do I I don't know if they wanted to
[1:04:26] say anything that I want just want to
[1:04:27] give that opportunity before I do have
[1:04:30] some questions for them too.
[1:04:34] » Good evening council.
[1:04:36] >> Good evening.
[1:04:37] >> Sergeant Bronn with the sheriff's office
[1:04:38] and ready to I got assistant sheriff
[1:04:41] Myers and Lily here with Flock to answer
[1:04:43] any questions you may have.
[1:04:46] Um okay so um this has been obviously a
[1:04:50] big Lily I sort of feel for you the uh
[1:04:52] taken a lot of heat u the past um
[1:04:55] certainly few weeks um so before I came
[1:04:59] here tonight on the on the news the
[1:05:01] local news there was a lot of stories
[1:05:02] about what's going on in um Oakland and
[1:05:05] Contracasta County and those sorts of
[1:05:07] you know other places that are having
[1:05:09] problems they mentioned Mountain View as
[1:05:11] well but one of the things that I heard
[1:05:12] was that flock was uh had just changed
[1:05:17] their policy statewide
[1:05:19] that they were not allowing any federal
[1:05:21] access throughout the entire state of
[1:05:22] California on any of their systems. So
[1:05:25] maybe you can comment on that. I don't
[1:05:27] know if that's correct. I just I heard
[1:05:28] it on Dan Noise on the on the news.
[1:05:33] >> Correct. Hi council members. My name is
[1:05:35] Lily Ho. I'm the public affairs manager
[1:05:37] for flock safety. It's a pleasure to be
[1:05:39] here with you this evening. Um, council
[1:05:41] member, uh, correct. We created that
[1:05:45] policy, uh, in March of last year, and
[1:05:50] that was to help agencies comply with
[1:05:53] state laws and we instituted that for
[1:05:56] the state of Virginia as well as the
[1:05:57] state of California.
[1:05:59] >> So that means that no federal agencies
[1:06:01] can access any flock databases in
[1:06:03] California. that in addition to removing
[1:06:07] nationalwide lookup, nationwide lookup
[1:06:10] from California agencies so that there
[1:06:12] could be no accidents.
[1:06:14] >> Okay. So, are any of the incidents we've
[1:06:17] heard about Mountain View probably being
[1:06:19] the most notable did did any of those
[1:06:22] occur after this policy went into place?
[1:06:24] >> No, it would not be possible.
[1:06:27] >> Okay. I didn't know that. That's that
[1:06:28] was sort of the issue that I that I had
[1:06:31] there. Um, and also, um, uh, I've got
[1:06:35] one for the sheriff's office as well.
[1:06:37] Thank you, Lily. Um,
[1:06:42] the town manager mentioned that you went
[1:06:45] through all of the inquiries since
[1:06:47] inception till roughly now.
[1:06:50] >> Yes, that is correct.
[1:06:51] >> So, what was could you just describe the
[1:06:53] process of doing that? I mean, you can't
[1:06:55] you certainly not to the audit level,
[1:06:57] but maybe you looked at who actually the
[1:06:59] agency that made the inquiry. Yeah. So,
[1:07:01] what happened is the system became live
[1:07:03] in May of 2023. Um, so from there, I ran
[1:07:07] a month-by-month report every month from
[1:07:09] May of 2023, and I looked into all the
[1:07:12] search inquiries of what agencies made
[1:07:15] them. Um, for the first three months, it
[1:07:18] was strictly just the sheriff's office.
[1:07:20] Um, then at that point, it went to
[1:07:21] Redwood City and then Sonteo PD. And it
[1:07:25] remained those three agencies throughout
[1:07:27] the the life of the system. Those are
[1:07:29] the only agencies database.
[1:07:31] >> The only three agencies that have access
[1:07:32] to database.
[1:07:32] >> By the way, is that true not only for
[1:07:34] the Woodside database, but for the
[1:07:35] sheriff's office database as well?
[1:07:37] >> I cannot say that for the sheriff's
[1:07:40] office database, but based off of my
[1:07:42] knowledge of the sharing, um that would
[1:07:44] not be accurate. The sheriff's office
[1:07:46] database is shares with other agencies.
[1:07:48] >> Perfect. Thank you.
[1:07:51] >> Yeah, questions. I think I've got
[1:07:54] questions for the town manager, for um
[1:07:56] our sheriff representatives, and for
[1:07:59] Miss Hoe. So, I'm going to start with
[1:08:00] the town manager.
[1:08:03] Um so, as our town manager, you oversee
[1:08:07] our contract, our contracts with Flock
[1:08:10] and the sheriff, right?
[1:08:12] >> Yes.
[1:08:13] >> Um I wanted to start off by asking about
[1:08:16] the the verification of the request and
[1:08:19] confirm sharing model. Um, so the staff
[1:08:23] report indicates that sharing is a is
[1:08:26] approved on a request and confirm basis
[1:08:29] and that to date no requests have been
[1:08:32] approved this year other than to the
[1:08:35] three authorized agencies which are Sano
[1:08:38] County Sheriff, San Monteo Police
[1:08:41] Department and Redwood City Police
[1:08:43] Department.
[1:08:45] However, Athetherton's policy failed
[1:08:47] because the volume of requests made
[1:08:50] manual approval no longer feasible
[1:08:53] leading to unauthorized access.
[1:08:56] So,
[1:08:58] uh just to state it again, the staff
[1:09:00] report states we operate on a strict
[1:09:01] request and confirm basis. So given that
[1:09:04] Athetherton admitted they stopped
[1:09:06] following this protocol because the
[1:09:08] volume of requests made it no longer
[1:09:11] feasible, can you confirm that a human
[1:09:14] being is physically reviewing every
[1:09:16] single request from outside agencies?
[1:09:21] » You know to to answer that question, I
[1:09:23] would say that ultimately we're not
[1:09:25] engaging the request is my
[1:09:27] understanding. And so requests are
[1:09:29] coming in consistently from all over the
[1:09:32] state of California. and based off of um
[1:09:36] I think a conservative approach to maybe
[1:09:40] uh what is perceived direction from the
[1:09:42] council even though it states in our
[1:09:45] policy that we can share with anyone in
[1:09:47] the state of California that it has been
[1:09:50] kind of the um inferred policy that
[1:09:53] pretty much any request that comes in
[1:09:55] that's not from Redwood City Police
[1:09:57] Department, Sanonteo Police Department
[1:09:59] or the Sheriff's Office themselves is
[1:10:02] just dismissed. it's not even reviewed.
[1:10:04] It's not even it it's not um considered.
[1:10:07] And so ultimately there may be an
[1:10:10] excessive amount of them, but it's not
[1:10:13] weighing us down as as you're stating
[1:10:15] it's weighing Athetherton down because
[1:10:17] we're we're not even engaging the
[1:10:20] request.
[1:10:22] Um, and so Mountain View recently
[1:10:24] discovered that their cameras were
[1:10:26] inadvertently set to nationwide um, and
[1:10:29] statewide sharing modes, which allowed
[1:10:31] hundreds of agencies to access data
[1:10:33] without the chief's knowledge. Have you
[1:10:36] personally logged into the flock system
[1:10:38] or the transparency portal to verify
[1:10:40] that our sharing permissions are
[1:10:41] strictly limited to the three agencies
[1:10:44] listed in the report, the Sanonteo
[1:10:46] County Sheriff's Office, Sanonteo PD,
[1:10:48] and the Redwood City PD, and that no
[1:10:50] batch or default settings have autopop
[1:10:53] populated other agencies.
[1:10:55] >> I haven't personally logged into the
[1:10:56] ALPR system to review that. What I've
[1:10:59] done is I've reached out because right
[1:11:01] now preparing this document while um the
[1:11:05] story was breaking ultimately I reached
[1:11:08] out to our representative at Flock and
[1:11:11] asked that specific question last week
[1:11:13] is that uh having read information I was
[1:11:17] finding that there were two boxes that
[1:11:20] um hypothetically could be checked that
[1:11:22] I was never made aware of uh which was
[1:11:25] national and state and I wanted
[1:11:27] confirmation from Flock talk that that had never happened in in Woodside.
[1:11:32] And so ultimately um that hasn't been
[1:11:34] rectified yet. I think that there has to
[1:11:36] be maybe a deeper dive or maybe we can
[1:11:38] get an answer from Flock this evening.
[1:11:41] So that's why we went with uh Sergeant
[1:11:43] Baragno's uh personal look at at and
[1:11:47] review of each individual request that
[1:11:50] has been made from 20 or that has been
[1:11:52] granted from 2023 until this moment. And
[1:11:55] so the way that I went about seeking to
[1:11:57] better understand the compliance, not
[1:11:59] being a user of the ALPR system because
[1:12:03] I'm not a law enforcement officer, was
[1:12:05] to reach out to Flock to better
[1:12:06] understand if they could answer that
[1:12:08] question for us. And at the moment, I I
[1:12:09] don't have an answer.
[1:12:16] Okay, moving on to the town manager
[1:12:18] audit. wanted to talk about its reliance
[1:12:21] on boilerplate language um versus actual
[1:12:23] practice and also um our acceptance of
[1:12:28] blocks written confirmation around their
[1:12:30] security practices. So in several audit
[1:12:33] inquiries and I'd point out inquiry
[1:12:35] number two and three as examples. Um,
[1:12:37] the report marks the search as compliant
[1:12:40] by simply quoting the sheriff's written
[1:12:43] policy against immigration enforcement
[1:12:46] rather than verifying what the officer
[1:12:48] actually did. The audit report relies on
[1:12:51] vendor promises rather than independent
[1:12:53] verification, which proved disastrous
[1:12:56] for Mountain View.
[1:12:58] So the question is why does the town
[1:12:59] manager audit report use the exact same
[1:13:02] boilerplate language regarding federal
[1:13:04] immigration enforcement in every search
[1:13:07] conducted by the sheriff's office which
[1:13:09] would be inquiries 2 3 6 7 8 and 10
[1:13:12] regardless of the crime being
[1:13:13] investigated.
[1:13:17] the uh really my perspective is is that
[1:13:20] the Brady bill makes it a crime for a
[1:13:24] law enforcement officer to lie. And so
[1:13:27] ultimately I'm utilizing the policies
[1:13:30] that they have um that they have signed
[1:13:33] up for uh at their uh selected places of
[1:13:36] business whether it be the sheriff's
[1:13:38] office or uh the Sanonteo Police
[1:13:40] Department, Redwood City Police
[1:13:41] Department, because that's the only way
[1:13:43] that I have to compare is to validate
[1:13:45] that the policy matches our policy and
[1:13:48] it's a good faith level of trust at the
[1:13:50] moment. I'm definitely more than willing
[1:13:52] to look at different ways to enforce
[1:13:55] this policy, but unfortunately at this
[1:13:58] moment, this is the only understanding
[1:14:00] that I have. But I would definitely take
[1:14:02] any um
[1:14:05] uh opportunities for a different way of validating this that
[1:14:10] you may think would be more um
[1:14:13] efficient.
[1:14:15] Um, under the data storage and
[1:14:17] protection section, the town manager
[1:14:19] audit states that compliance is met via
[1:14:22] an annual written confirmation from
[1:14:24] Flock. Mountain View relied on similar
[1:14:27] assurances only to discover their
[1:14:29] cameras were sharing data nationwide for
[1:14:31] months without their knowledge. Given
[1:14:33] that flock admitted to system failures
[1:14:35] in Mountain View, is a written note from
[1:14:37] the vendor sufficient proof for Woodside
[1:14:40] or in your estimation, should we demand
[1:14:42] an independent technical inspection of
[1:14:44] our system settings?
[1:14:46] It's compliant to the policy, I guess,
[1:14:48] is uh ultimately my job at the moment is
[1:14:52] to work with the policy that the town
[1:14:54] council has uh dictated and voted on as
[1:14:57] the policy that they would like me to
[1:15:00] utilize in order to create the quarterly
[1:15:02] report. And so I just uh I really take
[1:15:05] direction from whether or not the
[1:15:08] council is interested in altering that
[1:15:09] policy. And until they are interested in
[1:15:11] altering that policy, my job is to
[1:15:13] comply with the policy. And ultimately
[1:15:16] that is how the policy uh that's how I
[1:15:19] infer the policy claims compliance is to it it literally states in the
[1:15:24] policy that once a year the town manager
[1:15:27] is to request that that information that
[1:15:29] information from flock and that that is
[1:15:31] a compliance.
[1:15:35] » All right. Um I want to talk a little
[1:15:36] bit about shadow sharing with federal
[1:15:39] agencies. Um I'm sure it's something you
[1:15:41] read about in the in the news reports.
[1:15:43] So, uh, state law and woodside policy
[1:15:45] prohibit sharing data with federal
[1:15:47] agencies, including but not limited to
[1:15:49] for, uh, immigration enforcement.
[1:15:51] However, investigations in Oakland and
[1:15:53] San Francisco revealed that local
[1:15:55] officers were searching ALPR data on
[1:15:57] behalf of federal agencies by entering
[1:16:00] terms like FBI wanted suspect or ICE
[1:16:03] case into the search reason field. Here
[1:16:06] in Woodside, we authorize data sharing
[1:16:08] only with three agencies. What technical
[1:16:10] or policy controls prevent officers in
[1:16:13] those departments from searching
[1:16:15] Woodid's data on behalf of federal
[1:16:16] agencies?
[1:16:19] >> Yeah, that's uh I'd say the Brady Bill
[1:16:21] or or whatever type of progressive
[1:16:23] discipline is is utilized in those
[1:16:26] offices uh over over breaking their own
[1:16:29] policies. And so there's really my
[1:16:32] understanding there's no there's no way
[1:16:35] for me to uh even within my office,
[1:16:38] let's just remove the ALPR policy, but
[1:16:41] if someone in my office is performing a
[1:16:43] function uh and they're they're claiming
[1:16:46] they're doing it in good faith,
[1:16:48] ultimately the assumption is is that
[1:16:51] it's being done in good faith based off
[1:16:53] of them abiding by the town's policies.
[1:16:56] And then if it's found out that they're
[1:16:58] not abiding by those policies, I think
[1:17:00] that's when progressive discipline has
[1:17:02] to be made at each individual
[1:17:03] department. So that's another instance
[1:17:06] that I'm certainly open to different
[1:17:08] ways to validate that we're gaining
[1:17:10] compliance. But under the current policy
[1:17:13] and under the current structure of
[1:17:15] management of law enforcement for the
[1:17:17] town of Woodside is a contract law
[1:17:20] enforcement organization rather than
[1:17:22] where I came from, where I manage the
[1:17:24] police chief. It's just a different
[1:17:27] dynamic. So, if the town of Woodside had
[1:17:29] a police chief that reported to the town
[1:17:31] manager, it would be completely
[1:17:33] acceptable for me to treat that person's
[1:17:35] workspace as my own. They were reporting
[1:17:38] to me and that ultimately I had a lot of
[1:17:41] uh a lot of rights to dig into that
[1:17:44] department. here. It would be a little
[1:17:46] bit um I'm not exactly sure how I would
[1:17:50] go about reaching out to the police
[1:17:51] chief in San Mateo and and to gain
[1:17:54] validation. It would be kind of
[1:17:56] accusatory to to to believe that um that
[1:18:01] ultimately somebody is violating that.
[1:18:03] But I also live in reality and I
[1:18:04] understand that that it's been proven
[1:18:06] that that's being violated. So, it's a matter of faith that there's a
[1:18:11] policy that's being that's being
[1:18:13] followed by each organization and and
[1:18:16] but I still defer to the council if
[1:18:18] they'd like another mechanism to try to
[1:18:22] prove that.
[1:18:23] >> So, if a Redwood City officer runs a
[1:18:25] search on our on our data for an FBI
[1:18:28] task force, would our audit catch it?
[1:18:31] >> No. If somebody lied, if if um one of
[1:18:35] the things I saw from a desk item from
[1:18:37] Mr. middleman that came in was just a
[1:18:39] really great summary of just uh
[1:18:41] nationally. And so you'll see these
[1:18:43] instances where somebody will be looking
[1:18:45] up their ex-wife or their
[1:18:47] ex-girlfriend's vehicle in other states.
[1:18:50] And so ultimately if somebody is lying
[1:18:54] in the computer system, I don't I don't
[1:18:57] believe that we're going to have um it's
[1:18:59] possible if we're kind of if if there's
[1:19:02] more cues, but it would be very
[1:19:04] difficult if there's a claim here on
[1:19:07] let's say you pointed out uh number two.
[1:19:11] is stated as mail theft and
[1:19:15] so I'm taking that at its face value
[1:19:19] that I believe it's mail theft. But you
[1:19:20] rais a very good point is that
[1:19:22] ultimately is there a law enforcement
[1:19:24] officer making that claim and then doing
[1:19:26] a a a shadow uh drop of information to
[1:19:30] another agency? That could be happening.
[1:19:33] But that very accusatory of me to to to
[1:19:37] make that statement to a law enforcement
[1:19:39] officer. And so it's a it's good faith.
[1:19:41] That's a level of trust.
[1:19:43] >> Council member Wall. Yeah, I believe
[1:19:44] like the Oakland scenario, I'm not
[1:19:46] really familiar with it, but probably
[1:19:47] there was some sort of internal affairs
[1:19:48] investigation where they uncovered that
[1:19:50] their local officer was sharing with the
[1:19:52] federal government or immigration or
[1:19:54] whatnot. Uh that would probably result
[1:19:56] in an internal affairs investigation.
[1:19:58] That's the same thing we would do if we
[1:19:59] found out someone had lied on a search
[1:20:00] or something like that. And that could,
[1:20:02] you know, result in, you know, time off,
[1:20:05] disciplinary action, progressive
[1:20:06] discipline. So that would be a violation
[1:20:08] of our internal policy as well as state
[1:20:10] law. So it'd be you'd be in trouble.
[1:20:15] >> Um, so just continuing on Jason, so the
[1:20:17] staff report notes that there were
[1:20:19] 117,723
[1:20:22] total search queries, uh, since we only
[1:20:25] audited 10 of them. Uh, could we run a
[1:20:28] keyword search across all of those
[1:20:31] queries? uh justifications for red tag
[1:20:34] terms such as ICE, DHS, federal
[1:20:38] deportation, deportation, HSI to ensure
[1:20:41] that our data isn't being used to
[1:20:43] violate California law.
[1:20:46] >> I believe we can run that search. I
[1:20:48] don't know if it will garner uh you've
[1:20:50] pointed out that there's kind of the
[1:20:52] shadow idea and stuff, but I believe
[1:20:54] that it would be totally capable for us
[1:20:56] to run a search about cases. I would
[1:20:58] >> Yes, council member. We uh for our
[1:21:00] sheriff's office database we routinely
[1:21:01] do that with county council.
[1:21:02] >> So just I I I have a whole host of
[1:21:04] questions for you all that will kind of
[1:21:06] delve into I'm more asking can the town
[1:21:08] manager run the search? What like I'm
[1:21:09] wondering in your capacity as the
[1:21:11] custodian of the contract would you run
[1:21:13] that search? And maybe you don't know.
[1:21:16] >> Yeah. My belief is that I can't. And I
[1:21:19] think we've had this conversation on on multiple occasions is that um my
[1:21:24] interpretation of our policy, my
[1:21:26] interpretation of the policy at the
[1:21:28] Sanonteo County Sheriff's Office is that
[1:21:30] you have to be a sworn officer or
[1:21:32] literally work within uh the department
[1:21:35] itself to have the access of in order to
[1:21:38] make a search query of of that
[1:21:41] magnitude. Now we have a different level
[1:21:43] of access that um our assistant town
[1:21:45] manager has um that was provided to us
[1:21:48] as kind of the staff liaison but it is
[1:21:51] completely different than the actual APR
[1:21:55] system to do an audit of that magnitude
[1:21:58] or just an audit in general. We would be
[1:22:00] leaning on requesting that audit being
[1:22:03] made by the administrative sergeant.
[1:22:07] >> Um I want to turn to the statistical
[1:22:09] significance of the audit itself. So the
[1:22:11] ALPR quarterly report relies on an audit
[1:22:14] of only 10 random searches out of nearly
[1:22:17] 118,000 total queries. In Athetherton,
[1:22:20] unauthorized searches numbered in the
[1:22:22] thousands and many lacked proper uh
[1:22:24] justification.
[1:22:26] So because our audit reviewed only 10
[1:22:27] random searches to determine compliance.
[1:22:30] Um and given that there were over
[1:22:32] 117,000 queries, this sample size
[1:22:34] represents less than 0.01% of the total
[1:22:38] activity. Can you confidently certify to
[1:22:41] this council that the system is
[1:22:42] compliant with our privacy policy when
[1:22:45] only when 99.99%
[1:22:48] of the search queries were never
[1:22:49] examined?
[1:22:52] >> Yeah, I can say it's compliant with our
[1:22:54] policy because our policy clearly states
[1:22:57] we're to only audit 10.
[1:23:02] Uh
[1:23:02] >> would you commit to a more robust audit
[1:23:04] that flags incomplete or suspicious
[1:23:07] search justifications?
[1:23:10] I would submit to the will of the
[1:23:12] council.
[1:23:15] >> Uh, in Menlo Park, officers were
[1:23:16] conducting searches with insufficient
[1:23:18] justifications, such as simply typing in
[1:23:20] crime. In Tibberon, an investigation
[1:23:23] revealed that 23 agencies potentially
[1:23:26] violated privacy protections. Yet, their
[1:23:28] audit of five searches per month missed
[1:23:31] these violations completely. Since rogue
[1:23:34] officers often hide searches by entering
[1:23:36] vague terms like investigation or crime,
[1:23:39] could st could town staff run an
[1:23:41] automated keyword audit of all 117,723
[1:23:46] justification fields rather than relying
[1:23:49] on a manual review of just 10.
[1:23:53] >> Yeah. In order to do that, I believe we
[1:23:55] would have to be given access to the
[1:23:57] system as though we were a law
[1:23:59] enforcement officer to run a query like
[1:24:01] that. And so ultimately I would just
[1:24:03] defer to a flock. Is is that a service
[1:24:07] that um the town itself could actually
[1:24:10] uh purchase from you? My understanding
[1:24:13] is currently within our contract the
[1:24:15] default administrator falls to uh the administrative sergeant. And so this
[1:24:22] would be another instance where we would
[1:24:24] be reliant to make the request to run
[1:24:27] that query through Sergeant Vagno.
[1:24:32] Um, all right. I want to turn our focus
[1:24:33] to data retention and deletion. So,
[1:24:36] Woodside's policy dictates that data
[1:24:38] must not be stored beyond 60 days.
[1:24:41] However, the San Mo County Sheriff's
[1:24:43] Office policy defaults to a one-year
[1:24:45] retention period unless the local
[1:24:46] jurisdiction requests otherwise. Um, so
[1:24:50] you know, since our policy strictly
[1:24:51] limits retention to 60 days, but the
[1:24:53] sheriff's office policy defaults to one
[1:24:56] year, can you provide technical
[1:24:58] verification from Flock that the
[1:25:00] deletion setting for Woodid's specific
[1:25:03] cameras is set to 60 days and that
[1:25:05] overrides the sheriff's default one-year
[1:25:07] retention policy.
[1:25:09] >> Yeah, that's my understanding from our
[1:25:11] contract with Flock is that we're on a
[1:25:14] system that automatically deletes after
[1:25:16] 60 days. uh the retention policies for
[1:25:20] each individual agency. I uh my
[1:25:23] understanding is ultimately they're
[1:25:25] following along the lines of uh like a
[1:25:28] hot a a a hot list item, right? That
[1:25:32] they're following up on a case. And then
[1:25:34] the our policy also allows um the
[1:25:38] retention to last longer than 60 days.
[1:25:41] uh it to follow the normal legality of of retaining information based off of
[1:25:48] it being in a case itself. And so
[1:25:50] ultimately there are some instances
[1:25:52] where hypothetically in perpetuity data
[1:25:56] would be stored uh because it was
[1:25:58] involved in a case. But my understanding
[1:26:01] is based off of our contract with Flock
[1:26:03] is yeah is that it is deleted after 60
[1:26:05] days.
[1:26:06] >> Do you have any documentation that shows
[1:26:08] that? just the contract itself.
[1:26:14] » The staff report states that Flock
[1:26:16] automatically manages the deletion
[1:26:17] cycle. Have you performed an independent
[1:26:20] test to verify that data captured 61
[1:26:22] days ago is definitively gone from the
[1:26:25] server or we are or are we relying
[1:26:27] solely on vendor asurances?
[1:26:31] >> Yeah, we're relying on vendor asurances.
[1:26:36] » Um, two more topics to cover. Thank you
[1:26:38] so much for uh bearing with me with
[1:26:40] these questions. Um so on the topic of
[1:26:43] managing hot lists, the staff report
[1:26:45] notes that hot lists, which are lists of
[1:26:47] wanted plates, are downloaded daily and
[1:26:49] resulted in over 5,000 alerts. Our
[1:26:52] system downloads hot lists from state
[1:26:55] and national databases. Do we filter
[1:26:57] these lists to ensure they do not
[1:26:59] include civil immigration warrants or
[1:27:01] administrative warrants from ICE?
[1:27:05] >> That's a great question. you know, I'd
[1:27:07] have to really defer to uh the
[1:27:10] administrative sergeant on that.
[1:27:14] >> And then the final topic is system e
[1:27:17] efficacy. Um so there is a disparity
[1:27:20] between the volume of uh between the
[1:27:23] volume of surveillance and the actual
[1:27:25] local public safety outcomes. The annual
[1:27:27] report states that in 2025, our cameras
[1:27:30] performed over 3.1 million scans and
[1:27:34] generated 5,27
[1:27:36] hot list alerts. However, this massive
[1:27:39] intake of data is credited with
[1:27:40] assisting in the recovery of only two
[1:27:42] stolen vehicles and four arrests for
[1:27:45] crimes specifically occurring within
[1:27:47] Woodside. Given that one of the
[1:27:50] significant investigations cited in the
[1:27:52] report actually occurred in Porta Valley
[1:27:55] and considering that cities like Santa
[1:27:57] Cruz and Los Altos Hills recently
[1:27:58] terminated their contracts because they
[1:28:00] determined the privacy risks outweighed
[1:28:02] the benefits. How does the town justify
[1:28:05] the mass surveillance of millions of
[1:28:06] drivers when the system yields such a
[1:28:08] statistically negligible return for for
[1:28:11] resolving crimes inside our own borders?
[1:28:16] >> Yeah. Uh that's a that's a great
[1:28:18] question. And I think ultimately, you
[1:28:20] know, we have 26 cameras. There was a
[1:28:23] request from the council for a 27th near
[1:28:25] Running Me. And so we're awaiting
[1:28:27] installation. And so one car could
[1:28:30] travel through town uh and and be on all
[1:28:34] 26 of those cameras. And so they would
[1:28:37] account for part of that million that's
[1:28:40] going through. Uh I think that this is a
[1:28:43] question in in the 21st century that
[1:28:45] you're asking. Ultimately, I commute
[1:28:47] consistently over the bridge and and
[1:28:49] there I am. You know, I get I get
[1:28:52] something in the mail constantly
[1:28:54] tracking essentially where I'm headed.
[1:28:57] Uh and and that's kind of the the where the United States or where the
[1:29:02] world currently stands at the moment. I have something in my in my pocket that
[1:29:07] knows exactly where I am, knows a lot of
[1:29:09] my habits, is listening to what I'm
[1:29:10] saying. in a lot of instances. I would
[1:29:13] say that for me uh as the town manager,
[1:29:16] I don't reside in the town of Woodside,
[1:29:18] but one of my biggest fears for the town
[1:29:20] of Woodside is for the safety and
[1:29:22] security of the folks that do live here
[1:29:24] and that ultimately that that tradeoff
[1:29:26] is beneficial to to the community and I stand by that and I I understand
[1:29:32] the consequences of what's currently
[1:29:34] transpiring, but ultimately I really
[1:29:37] believe uh rather than being as
[1:29:39] transparent as we are that ultimately
[1:29:41] we're showcasing where these cameras are
[1:29:44] located to people um that may want to
[1:29:47] cause harm in our community. And so I I
[1:29:50] would I would be on the opposite side of
[1:29:51] that of removing the the front the
[1:29:55] public facing documentation that shows
[1:29:57] everybody where these cameras are
[1:29:58] located because I believe that in the
[1:30:00] context of security for the town of
[1:30:02] Woodside that ultimately uh we're going
[1:30:06] to lean on this type of technology
[1:30:08] rather than the escalated costs that it
[1:30:11] means to bring extra officers uh on foot
[1:30:14] patrol within the community. We're going
[1:30:16] to see less of that because the cost of
[1:30:17] that is escalating and we're going to
[1:30:19] have to really rely on the technology
[1:30:22] and I think we have an opportunity here
[1:30:24] tonight. Flock is here. We have the
[1:30:26] assistant sheriff is here. I think that
[1:30:28] there's an interest in the use of the
[1:30:30] technology. There's an interest in in
[1:30:33] finding a balance for the sec for the
[1:30:36] security of the data and that we can
[1:30:38] make incremental positive change with
[1:30:40] the current system that we have. and I
[1:30:43] believe that the town is justified to
[1:30:45] maintain this system.
[1:30:47] >> Thank you very much. Um so turning to
[1:30:52] the sheriff, thank you so much for being
[1:30:53] here tonight. So not sure which of you
[1:30:56] uh plan to answer, but I'll just direct
[1:30:57] my questions at both of you. Um because
[1:31:00] I'm interested in asking some questions
[1:31:02] about how you operationalize Woodside's
[1:31:05] p privacy policy because while the town
[1:31:07] manager oversees the contract, the
[1:31:08] sheriff's office is actually the enduser
[1:31:10] of the system.
[1:31:12] Um, and based on the discrepancies in
[1:31:15] the sheriff's own policy documents
[1:31:16] versus Woodid's policy and the specific
[1:31:20] failures seen in nearby agencies, I just
[1:31:22] wanted to ask a few questions. Um, so
[1:31:25] the first uh topic goes to the shadow
[1:31:27] sharing issue that um I asked our town
[1:31:29] manager a couple questions on it and
[1:31:30] we've, you know, it's been widely
[1:31:32] reported in the news. Um, so news
[1:31:35] reports from Oakland and San Francisco
[1:31:37] revealed that local officers were not
[1:31:40] officially sharing data with FBI or ICE,
[1:31:44] but were instead running searches on
[1:31:46] their behalf by typing in terms like FBI
[1:31:48] wanted or ICE case into the search
[1:31:51] reason field. Um, investigations in
[1:31:55] Oakland found that while data sharing
[1:31:57] was technically disabled, officers were
[1:32:00] running uh were simply running searches
[1:32:02] on behalf of federal agents they worked
[1:32:04] with. Do San Monteo County deputies that
[1:32:07] are assigned to federal task forces like
[1:32:10] the FBI or DEA have access to Woodside's
[1:32:14] ALPR data?
[1:32:18] » Yes.
[1:32:20] Okay.
[1:32:21] >> Um, and so what technical barrier steps
[1:32:26] what technical barrier stops them from
[1:32:28] manually running a plate for a federal
[1:32:30] partner?
[1:32:33] >> The fact that it would be a violation of
[1:32:34] our policy and if they were cooperating
[1:32:36] with immigration be a violation of state
[1:32:37] law.
[1:32:38] >> Okay. But there's no technical barrier.
[1:32:41] >> No, you're relying on the deputy's
[1:32:43] integrity.
[1:32:47] and your report shows over 117,000
[1:32:50] queries were run. Since we can't
[1:32:53] manually review all of them, would it be
[1:32:56] possible to run an automated keyword
[1:32:58] search on the justification or the
[1:33:00] reason field for all 117,000 past
[1:33:04] queries looking for terms like ICE or
[1:33:07] immigration, homeland security
[1:33:08] investigation, things like that?
[1:33:11] >> Yes, the export file is basically in a
[1:33:13] Excel format. So, we can search for any
[1:33:16] kind of words you want in there. We were
[1:33:18] actually doing a audit of our sheriff's
[1:33:20] office one and we found uh DHS was in
[1:33:22] it. Uh a little more investigations. We
[1:33:24] found out it was actually Desert Hot
[1:33:26] Springs PD. So, we do do routine audits.
[1:33:29] Um in addition to that, we are also
[1:33:31] working with the civil grand jury. Uh
[1:33:33] we've pro provided them an audit for our
[1:33:35] last 60 days as well as our policy.
[1:33:37] Flock's going to be working with them to
[1:33:38] ensure that we're operating within the
[1:33:40] best policies and procedures. But yes,
[1:33:42] we can we can do a key search word for u
[1:33:46] uh all the searches we've had.
[1:33:47] >> Okay, that's really fantastic to hear.
[1:33:50] Um I wanted to turn to the conflicting
[1:33:52] retention policies. So there's a direct
[1:33:54] conflict between the sheriff's office
[1:33:56] policy and the town of Woodid's policy
[1:33:58] regarding how long data is kept. As a
[1:34:02] contract city, Woodside's situation is
[1:34:04] different from peer communities like
[1:34:05] Menlo Park, uh, Mountain View, and
[1:34:08] Athetherton because Woodside maintains
[1:34:10] legislative ownership of the cameras
[1:34:12] while delegating operational control to
[1:34:15] an external agency that the sheriff. So,
[1:34:18] this creates a pretty unique uh policy
[1:34:20] versus practice gap doesn't exist in
[1:34:23] cities with their own police chiefs. Um,
[1:34:26] specifically, there are conflicting
[1:34:28] retention per policies. one year for the
[1:34:31] sheriff's policy, 60 days for the
[1:34:33] Woodside policy. Unlike pure cities
[1:34:35] where the city council and and police
[1:34:37] chief can align on one policy, Woodside
[1:34:40] has a direct conflict between its local
[1:34:42] ordinance and the agency operating the
[1:34:45] system. Woodside's policy mandates the
[1:34:47] data must be deleted after 60 days, but
[1:34:50] the sheriff's policy states that the data is retained for a minimum
[1:34:54] of one year. This creates risk, right?
[1:34:57] While the sheriff's policy contains a
[1:34:58] clause allowing for different retention
[1:35:00] periods, if a local government requests
[1:35:02] it, this requires technical segregation.
[1:35:05] If Woodid's cameras are not strictly
[1:35:08] siloed from the sheriff's general
[1:35:10] network, Woodid's data could default to
[1:35:12] the county's one-year retention period,
[1:35:14] violating Woodside's privacy ordinance.
[1:35:17] Um, can you explain how you segregate
[1:35:20] Woodid's data from the rest of the
[1:35:22] county's data to ensure that our 60-day
[1:35:25] limit is technically enforced and not
[1:35:27] overridden by the county's one-year
[1:35:28] default?
[1:35:32] » Yes, they're two different two
[1:35:34] completely different systems. So,
[1:35:36] Woodside is it's on its own network and
[1:35:38] I've personally verified that the data I
[1:35:41] think there's some confusion in terms
[1:35:43] data retention here. Um the data
[1:35:45] retention for the 60 days is part of the
[1:35:48] searchable database that as an
[1:35:50] investigator I would go in and conduct a
[1:35:52] search. I personally know that cuz it
[1:35:54] affected one of your residents when I
[1:35:55] was not able to do a search at the 61day
[1:35:58] mark and look for a suspect vehicle um
[1:36:01] when I was asked to do that. So I know
[1:36:03] that policy. I know the retention
[1:36:05] firsthand is 60 days and there's no
[1:36:07] longer any information left to it. Um
[1:36:10] where the confliction is I think or the
[1:36:12] confusion is once that information
[1:36:14] becomes part of a case then it's part of
[1:36:16] a criminal investigation and then it
[1:36:18] falls under the standards of the
[1:36:20] evidence code legal proceedings um and
[1:36:23] the case um and the progression through
[1:36:25] the court system.
[1:36:28] There's no there's not going to be any
[1:36:29] kind of confusion as far as the 60 days
[1:36:31] versus the um the sheriff's office
[1:36:35] retention policy because they operate on
[1:36:36] two completely different systems.
[1:36:40] Thanks.
[1:36:42] Um, in Mountain View, I want to talk
[1:36:45] about Mountain View for a minute. So,
[1:36:46] Mountain View recently suspended their
[1:36:48] program because their cameras were
[1:36:50] inadvertently set to nationwide sharing
[1:36:53] mode without the chief's knowledge,
[1:36:55] which allowed federal agencies,
[1:36:57] including the Bureau of Alcohol,
[1:36:59] Tobacco, and Firearms, among a number of
[1:37:02] other agencies, to access their data. So
[1:37:05] essentially, Mountain View discovered
[1:37:06] their cameras were sharing data with
[1:37:08] federal agencies because of a default
[1:37:10] setting they didn't know was on. When
[1:37:12] was the last time, if ever, someone in
[1:37:15] your office physically looked at the
[1:37:16] sharing configuration screen for
[1:37:18] Woodsides specific cameras to verify
[1:37:22] they are not set to nationwide or
[1:37:24] statewide sharing?
[1:37:26] >> I personally did about a month ago.
[1:37:29] >> And what did you learn?
[1:37:31] >> I'm sorry.
[1:37:32] >> And what did you discover? they're off.
[1:37:36] And then when I went and manually did a
[1:37:38] network search of every network inquiry,
[1:37:40] I verified that no outside agencies
[1:37:42] other than the sheriff's office, Redwood
[1:37:44] City, and Santo PD utilize the database.
[1:37:48] >> Similar to Mountain View Police
[1:37:50] Department, could the San Monteo County
[1:37:52] Sheriff's Office undertake a deeper
[1:37:54] review to determine whether nationwide
[1:37:56] or statewide sharing has ever been
[1:37:58] enabled in Woodside?
[1:38:02] There's no way to tell if the switch was
[1:38:05] on or if we were going to call it a
[1:38:06] switch um which allowed that. But I know
[1:38:09] personally that since I've gone through
[1:38:10] every single one that if it was on at
[1:38:14] some point it was never utilized because
[1:38:16] of the search.
[1:38:20] >> Turning to hot list integrity. Uh your
[1:38:22] system automatically downloads hot lists
[1:38:24] which are lists of wanted license plates
[1:38:26] from state and national databases.
[1:38:29] However, these lists can sometimes
[1:38:31] include civil civil immigration warrants
[1:38:33] or administrative warrants that that do
[1:38:36] not represent criminal threats.
[1:38:39] The sheriff's policy states that hot
[1:38:40] lists are downloaded daily from state
[1:38:43] and national databases. Do you apply a
[1:38:46] filter to these lists to ensure they do
[1:38:48] not contain civil immigration warrants?
[1:38:52] >> Yes, for uh the information that's
[1:38:54] downloaded, we call it through klet,
[1:38:56] which is the California law enforcement
[1:38:59] telecommunications. I might get the
[1:39:01] acronym wrong, but that's where all the
[1:39:02] warrants come through. We would have
[1:39:04] there would be no immigration warrants
[1:39:06] going through that state database.
[1:39:07] Likewise, too, if we did have any
[1:39:10] external
[1:39:11] uh hot list, uh if it popped up on our
[1:39:14] screen and it showed that it was an
[1:39:15] immigration violation or immigration
[1:39:17] warrant, we would simply ignore it.
[1:39:20] >> So, if a plate hits on a noncriminal
[1:39:23] invest immigration detainer, would your
[1:39:25] deputies be alerted?
[1:39:31] No, not that I've ever seen.
[1:39:34] >> Um, all right. Turning to the audit
[1:39:36] sample size. The quarterly audit
[1:39:39] reviewed only 10 searches out of tens of
[1:39:41] thousands. In Athetherton, unauthorized
[1:39:44] searches number numbered in the
[1:39:46] thousands. Do you believe that a sample
[1:39:48] size of 10 is statistically significant
[1:39:50] enough to catch a rogue officer misusing
[1:39:53] the system? I was following the Woodside
[1:39:56] policy.
[1:40:03] » Would you be able to increase the audit
[1:40:05] sample size to at least 1% of all
[1:40:08] queries for the next report?
[1:40:11] >> That would be determined on the board.
[1:40:13] But also that would number would
[1:40:14] fluctuate because 1% one month or one
[1:40:18] quarter could be completely different
[1:40:19] than 1% another month. So
[1:40:22] >> there'd be no like technical impediment
[1:40:23] to you increasing the audit size to 1%.
[1:40:26] >> Just manual labor.
[1:40:29] These searches are are done
[1:40:32] by me personally um
[1:40:35] through a randomized number generator
[1:40:38] and I manually pick those out. So it's
[1:40:40] very labor intensive.
[1:40:41] >> Got it. Um, Athetherton, which has its
[1:40:44] own police department, failed to follow
[1:40:46] its privacy policy because the commander
[1:40:48] admitted that manually reviewing every
[1:40:51] sharing request was no longer feasible
[1:40:53] due to the volume of requests.
[1:40:56] Uh so Woodside's challenge is, you know,
[1:40:59] we're asking the sheriff to enforce a
[1:41:00] strict request and confirm sharing model
[1:41:02] for Woodside that is more restrictive
[1:41:05] than that what you likely practice in
[1:41:07] other parts of
[1:41:10] >> uh because Sonteo County Sheriff's
[1:41:12] Office deputies manage vast amounts of
[1:41:14] data across the county, there is a risk
[1:41:16] they may apply batch approvals, the
[1:41:19] specific error that caused Menllo Parks
[1:41:21] breach rather than the individual manual
[1:41:23] review required by Woodsides policy.
[1:41:26] Can you say whether that's happening in
[1:41:27] Woodside?
[1:41:30] » Yeah. So, I I think we're talking about
[1:41:32] when you say request, you're you're
[1:41:35] we're using it interchangeably between
[1:41:36] two different items here. One is a
[1:41:39] request request to actually conduct a
[1:41:41] search within the database. And that was
[1:41:43] Roadwood City, Samato, and the sheriff's
[1:41:45] office. The request to utilize or have
[1:41:47] access to that system comes directly to
[1:41:48] the administrative sergeant, which is
[1:41:51] me. Um, and I have not approved any
[1:41:53] other requests that come through and
[1:41:54] that is set for a one-on-one review with
[1:41:57] the town of Woodside's pol or town of
[1:41:59] Woodside system. There is an option in
[1:42:02] the system to if someone requests access
[1:42:04] automatically gets it. Um, I don't
[1:42:06] necessarily know the case with other
[1:42:07] cities, but that may have been that may
[1:42:10] option may have been turned on. It's not
[1:42:11] on with the town of Woodside. Got it.
[1:42:14] >> All right. Thank you. Uh, Miss Ho from
[1:42:16] Flock, I have some questions for you.
[1:42:24] So, as you probably guessed, most of my
[1:42:26] questions are based on to the documented
[1:42:28] failures in neighboring towns. Um, so I
[1:42:31] wanted to touch on Mountain View first.
[1:42:33] Um, the Mountain View Police suspended
[1:42:36] their program because their cameras were
[1:42:37] inadvertently set to nationwide sharing
[1:42:40] mode, which Flock admitted was a system
[1:42:42] failure on their part.
[1:42:45] Can Flock provide a written confirmation
[1:42:47] that Woodside's default installation
[1:42:50] setting is local only and that a
[1:42:52] software update cannot silently revert
[1:42:54] our sharing permissions to nationwide?
[1:42:57] >> We can provide that written.
[1:43:03] » Thank you. Um,
[1:43:06] so your company assured Mountain View
[1:43:08] that protections were in place. Yet the
[1:43:10] chief later stated that the flock system
[1:43:12] circumvented the protections we
[1:43:14] purposefully built. Why should Woodside
[1:43:16] trust your current assurances if your
[1:43:18] system previously overrode local
[1:43:20] configurations?
[1:43:23] I don't believe that that's true.
[1:43:26] When the dates at question for Mountain
[1:43:30] View were done during August to November
[1:43:35] of 2024, this is when they were on a
[1:43:37] pilot program with Flock. They were not
[1:43:40] yes yet customers. They were testing out
[1:43:42] the pro testing out the product. They
[1:43:44] became customers in January and I assume
[1:43:46] that's when their policies fell into
[1:43:48] place.
[1:43:56] So given what happened in Mountain View
[1:43:58] involving the national lookup tool where
[1:44:00] federal agencies access data despite
[1:44:02] local prohibitions.
[1:44:04] Um have a few more questions on that
[1:44:06] topic. So there was a a senator's
[1:44:09] oversight inquiry revealed that 75% of
[1:44:12] flocks law enforcement customers are
[1:44:14] enrolled in the national lookup tool
[1:44:16] which permits searches across
[1:44:18] jurisdictions. Would you be able to
[1:44:20] provide a technical report confirming
[1:44:22] that Woodside is not one of those
[1:44:23] agencies and that the national lookup
[1:44:25] feature is hard disabled in our
[1:44:27] configuration? Similar to your first
[1:44:29] question, yes, we can do that.
[1:44:35] » So, in Menlo Park, police share data
[1:44:38] with agencies in Texas and Illinois um
[1:44:41] attributing the breach to a glitch or a
[1:44:43] batch of requests that were approved
[1:44:46] inadvertently because of human error.
[1:44:48] Menlo Park officials suggested that a
[1:44:50] batch of access requests might have been
[1:44:53] approved largely by accident due to this
[1:44:55] system glitch or UI design failure. Does
[1:44:58] your system currently allow a select all
[1:45:01] or batch approval function for incoming
[1:45:03] data requests?
[1:45:05] That was probably when they were by
[1:45:08] accident on national lookup. National
[1:45:11] Lookup is not possible to enroll in for
[1:45:14] any agencies within California and
[1:45:17] Virginia.
[1:45:22] » Okay. So, you're saying that that would
[1:45:24] have only happened if they were on
[1:45:26] National Lookup,
[1:45:26] >> correct?
[1:45:29] >> So, moving on to the shadow sharing
[1:45:31] topic. Um, Athetherton police claimed
[1:45:34] that Flock system prevents searches
[1:45:36] containing keywords like like ICE.
[1:45:38] However, records from Oakland and other
[1:45:40] jurisdictions show successful search
[1:45:42] searches for terms like ICE case and
[1:45:45] FBI.
[1:45:46] Our understanding is that Flock prevents
[1:45:48] searches containing keywords like that,
[1:45:51] but press reports show logs with search
[1:45:54] reasons like ICE case being successfully
[1:45:57] processed. So, can you clarify does your
[1:46:00] system hard block specific keywords in
[1:46:02] the search justification field?
[1:46:04] >> Yes, we allow it or does it merely
[1:46:06] discourage them? we allowed for that
[1:46:09] those search term blockings. Uh it's a
[1:46:12] feature in our product that was
[1:46:14] implemented last summer.
[1:46:18] Additionally, since December of last
[1:46:20] year, we have a drop-down tool for
[1:46:25] prefilled search terms. And the search
[1:46:27] terms come from Nebris. And this is to
[1:46:30] avoid vague terms like you mentioned
[1:46:32] earlier like crime, but also to help
[1:46:35] with jurisdictions. uh data analysis.
[1:46:39] >> Would you be able to provide a list of
[1:46:41] prohibited terms?
[1:46:43] >> Well, at this point, I think we can
[1:46:45] provide a list of neighbors of the terms
[1:46:47] of our drop down.
[1:46:50] >> Um, on the topic of uh data deletion, so
[1:46:55] Woodid's contract stipulates a 60-day
[1:46:58] retention period, but residents have
[1:47:00] raised concerns about whether data is
[1:47:02] truly wiped or just hidden. When data is
[1:47:05] deleted from your cloud, is it
[1:47:07] immediately overwritten or does it exist
[1:47:09] in a backup server or soft delete state
[1:47:12] for a period of time? Data sanitation is
[1:47:15] a key part of our data security
[1:47:18] protocols. It allows us to maintain
[1:47:20] certifications like the FBI just
[1:47:22] certifications and allow us to be on the
[1:47:25] AWS GovCloud.
[1:47:31] Would you would Flock be able to provide
[1:47:33] an automated certificate of destruction
[1:47:35] log that proves Woodside's data is
[1:47:37] physically gone after 60 days?
[1:47:40] >> I think we can provide you the
[1:47:41] certifications.
[1:47:46] » Is there a distinction between a
[1:47:47] certificate of destruction log or the
[1:47:50] certifications that you referenced in
[1:47:52] terms of like security certifications
[1:47:54] that a company gets to indicate their
[1:47:56] level of security practices?
[1:47:59] You know, I've never been asked for a
[1:48:02] log of data deletion, but it does happen
[1:48:05] on a 24-hour every rolling basis.
[1:48:08] >> Okay. Would you be able to look into
[1:48:10] that and what to determine whether or
[1:48:12] not a certificate of destruction log is
[1:48:14] feasible and could be provided?
[1:48:16] >> Yes.
[1:48:24] » Last question. Uh, Flock offers features
[1:48:27] beyond license plate reading, such as
[1:48:29] Flock Free Form, which allows searching
[1:48:32] for vehicles based on visual
[1:48:33] characteristics
[1:48:35] um, rather than just plates. And does
[1:48:37] the software package Woodside is
[1:48:39] currently paying for include flock free
[1:48:41] form or any object, people or sound
[1:48:45] detection anal analytics
[1:48:47] for our ALPRs? It is free form only for
[1:48:50] vehicle characteristics. It does not
[1:48:54] look at people or animals or anything
[1:48:56] else.
[1:49:00] » I have no further questions. Thank you.
[1:49:06] » Other questions from council?
[1:49:09] >> I do.
[1:49:09] >> Yes. Mayor Prom,
[1:49:11] >> they could if they want to go first. Uh
[1:49:14] >> yeah, you
[1:49:14] >> if you want me to go first. Sure. Um
[1:49:17] yes. Uh a question for the sheriff's
[1:49:19] department. Um, have you seen any
[1:49:22] evidence of any violations of the
[1:49:25] program, the flock since you started
[1:49:27] with the Woodside? Any Woodside?
[1:49:30] >> No impact whatsoever.
[1:49:33] >> Sorry. No, not at all.
[1:49:35] >> Thank you,
[1:49:37] Mayor P.
[1:49:38] >> Thank you. Um, I've got a few questions.
[1:49:41] Um,
[1:49:44] one, uh, first I appreciate, um, going
[1:49:47] through what happened in Mountain View.
[1:49:49] um that level of detail that it that it
[1:49:53] happened at a certain time interval.
[1:49:55] That's I I noticed that uh the Mountain
[1:49:58] View representatives were pretty vague
[1:49:59] about the timing of when it happened. It
[1:50:02] almost sounded kind of urgent like it
[1:50:04] happened just now. Um but that um does
[1:50:07] not seem to be the case. Um,
[1:50:14] I also wanted to ask uh in I appreciate
[1:50:18] our new assistant sheriff, um, Mark
[1:50:21] Meyers being here. By the way, um, I
[1:50:25] think I've worked with members of the
[1:50:26] sheriff's department for something like
[1:50:27] 30 years, dating back to Don Horesley.
[1:50:30] And um I think I think uh our new
[1:50:34] assistant sheriff I would put him rank
[1:50:37] him as the highest uh my my respect for
[1:50:41] him and the work that he's done uh
[1:50:43] surpasses anybody I've ever known at the
[1:50:45] sheriff's office. So thank you for being
[1:50:46] here tonight shows us how important this
[1:50:48] is that you were here. I appreciate it.
[1:50:51] >> Um for those who don't know Mark headed
[1:50:54] up SWAT bomb squad uh the K-9 unit. uh
[1:50:58] now he heads up all operations for the
[1:51:00] sheriff's office and uh very welld
[1:51:01] deserved. Um
[1:51:04] but um I just wanted to ask you because
[1:51:07] we because one of the comments that was
[1:51:09] made in the questions and I thought they
[1:51:10] were really good questions by the way um
[1:51:13] were that the number of people that we
[1:51:15] may have caught in Woodside for Woodside
[1:51:18] crimes. But I understand that you know
[1:51:20] this is a network where somebody may
[1:51:23] commit a crime here, you may catch them
[1:51:25] in Foster City. I remember the cop I
[1:51:27] actually the uh chief at Hill at um
[1:51:29] Hillsboro
[1:51:31] um I forgot his name now actually he's
[1:51:33] with the sheriff's office now I think
[1:51:34] maybe or he's with emergency services
[1:51:36] >> Nelson Cordway
[1:51:37] >> Nelson exactly I had breakfast with him
[1:51:39] once a few years ago but he mentioned
[1:51:41] that somebody from Porto Valley had
[1:51:44] committed a crime and they caught them
[1:51:45] at the Hillsdale Mall uh the same day um
[1:51:48] so you never know where you're going to
[1:51:49] catch anybody and I assume we catch
[1:51:50] people in in Woodside who committed
[1:51:52] crimes in Redwood City or other places
[1:51:54] as well but could you comment on that
[1:51:55] the just the sheer numbers of uh you
[1:51:58] know the millions of of uh cars that may
[1:52:01] go through a lot of them are us but I
[1:52:03] mean it's just uh you know we pass a lot
[1:52:05] of cameras but the efficacy of what you
[1:52:08] actually hit on and and whether that's
[1:52:11] woodside or not woodside
[1:52:13] >> I I think you get a good mixture like I
[1:52:15] was formerly in San Carlos we would get
[1:52:17] a lot of uh uh a lot of times we'd have
[1:52:22] cars that would commit a burglary in
[1:52:23] West Menllo Park and then we get them up
[1:52:25] in San Carlos off of Crest View. So
[1:52:27] having and that was using Menllo Park or
[1:52:29] Athetherton's the license plate readers.
[1:52:30] So having that network is really what
[1:52:32] makes the system great and kind of
[1:52:34] spreads that umbrella protection, you
[1:52:37] know, over the county. Um, as far as the
[1:52:40] report, we can give you more detail and
[1:52:41] maybe give you some more examples. Um,
[1:52:43] it's just a deep dive we have to do.
[1:52:46] >> Okay. Um, and the last thing I wanted to
[1:52:48] mention, I have some comments. I'll save
[1:52:50] them because I know this is sort of a
[1:52:52] question period here. Um, but I did want
[1:52:55] to, you know, one of the things that I
[1:52:56] noticed is that, um, there was a lot of
[1:52:59] mention of failures of other agencies,
[1:53:02] Athetherton, Mountain View, um, uh,
[1:53:05] Oakland, etc.,
[1:53:07] but not the sheriff's office. That's,
[1:53:09] uh, the one that I haven't heard any
[1:53:11] breaches from, you know, that that
[1:53:13] really come out of your location in
[1:53:15] Redwood City. Um, and and I think I
[1:53:18] heard correctly that my question is is
[1:53:19] that that does seem to be the case. Uh,
[1:53:22] as far as we could, you know, as far as
[1:53:24] we can tell, we are in the process of
[1:53:26] looking at doing a a full audit of all
[1:53:28] of our information, all of the the reads
[1:53:30] we've have since we had the system. This
[1:53:31] is very labor intensive, but I think we
[1:53:33] have a great relationship with with
[1:53:34] Flock. Uh, any changes to make our
[1:53:37] system more robust, whether it's search
[1:53:38] terms or whatever, uh, they implement it
[1:53:41] right away. So, I think we really have a
[1:53:42] good relationship with Flock, and that's
[1:53:44] kind of why I think we have avoided a
[1:53:46] lot of these things that other agencies,
[1:53:47] unfortunately, have had to deal with.
[1:53:49] Um, and just for for your knowledge,
[1:53:50] like I'm one of the system
[1:53:52] administrators, Nick is, and then our
[1:53:54] technical services director, so really
[1:53:55] only three people have access to make
[1:53:57] any of those changes.
[1:53:59] >> Okay. Thank you. And the the um I did
[1:54:02] have something I I I was just reminded
[1:54:03] of what our mayor said just before he
[1:54:05] opened this thing up and that is that
[1:54:07] the purpose here tonight is to see if
[1:54:09] we're this isn't a quarterly review and
[1:54:12] an annual review that we have on whether
[1:54:14] or not we're in compliance with the
[1:54:16] policy that we set up. And I think
[1:54:20] that's what's before us tonight. If we
[1:54:21] want to make changes to those policies
[1:54:23] and require deeper audits or deeper
[1:54:25] certifications or other things, we would
[1:54:27] have to decide that. But I think until
[1:54:29] we do, you know, we're sort of at the uh
[1:54:32] this is what we've demanded of you to do
[1:54:34] and uh we're here to see whether or not
[1:54:37] that's been certified uh at least to our
[1:54:40] satisfaction. So, thank you for being
[1:54:41] patient with those.
[1:54:42] >> And then also just last week, we just
[1:54:44] updated our LPR policy. So, I will get
[1:54:46] that to the uh the town manager. We
[1:54:48] actually included per uh Supervisor
[1:54:50] Spirit's request, we actually put a a
[1:54:53] language in there where the the cameras
[1:54:55] won't be used for any kind of first
[1:54:56] amendment protest or anything like that.
[1:54:58] >> Excellent. Thank you. Great son. Joseph,
[1:55:04] >> um I just have a few questions. Um guys,
[1:55:08] how how long did it take to complete
[1:55:10] that search of all you know uh from the
[1:55:14] start of the system till now?
[1:55:17] took me approximately two hours.
[1:55:19] >> And how long do you usually does it
[1:55:21] usually take you to prepare for this
[1:55:23] quarterly meeting? Um, in total,
[1:55:26] including anyone who helps you with with
[1:55:28] preparing for us.
[1:55:30] >> It's just me. I'm the only one who has
[1:55:31] access to it for the policy. Um, it's
[1:55:35] probably about an hour to to run the
[1:55:37] reports and and complete it all.
[1:55:39] >> Okay. In total, including drive time,
[1:55:41] everything. How long would you say you
[1:55:42] spend quarterly um for this whole
[1:55:45] process?
[1:55:48] Um, this quarter is a little bit more
[1:55:49] intense um than other ones, but probably
[1:55:52] close to five hours if you factor
[1:55:54] everything in.
[1:55:55] >> Okay. Jason, can I ask you how long does
[1:55:58] it take our Woodside I mean our
[1:56:00] resources to to go through this process
[1:56:02] quarterly?
[1:56:04] >> Yeah, we internally staff feel that this
[1:56:07] item has been contentious at least since
[1:56:10] its inception. And so we're constantly
[1:56:12] trying to figure out ways to really show
[1:56:15] compliance and and dig deeper. And so in
[1:56:19] this instance, I mean, we definitely
[1:56:21] spent substantially more time than that.
[1:56:23] We met with the sheriff's office for
[1:56:25] over two hours. Uh and then we changed
[1:56:29] our reporting structure completely. And
[1:56:31] so preparing for this, I mean, I would
[1:56:33] say it was like 12 hours of uh just
[1:56:35] really deeper discussion, really trying
[1:56:37] to figure out how we can um bring about
[1:56:41] a better level of compliance or showing
[1:56:42] a narrative rather than just the the
[1:56:45] check boxes that we were showing before.
[1:56:47] >> Thank you.
[1:56:51] » I've got a related question here. One of
[1:56:53] the things that's just been on my mind
[1:56:55] with all this is the issue of oversight
[1:56:58] governance and um the reporting
[1:57:01] relationship we have with our sheriff
[1:57:03] and the department here has been
[1:57:05] outsourced to an advisory volunteer
[1:57:08] committee and uh the question I have
[1:57:11] really um and of course that's been
[1:57:12] something that's bothered me like should
[1:57:14] we be outsourcing an outsourced policing
[1:57:17] department uh when it's the single
[1:57:19] largest budget item that we have and
[1:57:21] with everything that's going on with
[1:57:23] safety and security that's on this. I
[1:57:24] mean, our entire agenda to come is still
[1:57:26] about safety issues in town and of
[1:57:28] course the scrutiny that's going up on
[1:57:30] these cameras. So, my question for you
[1:57:32] is um can you give us a little bit of
[1:57:34] color? What is the normal reporting
[1:57:36] relationship that you have with the
[1:57:38] councils that you serve? Do you talk to
[1:57:40] the councils? Do you talk to some
[1:57:42] advisory body or I mean
[1:57:44] >> direct relationship or
[1:57:46] >> prior San Carlos experience once a year
[1:57:47] I would provide a annual report to the
[1:57:50] council that would uh have all sorts of
[1:57:52] stat statistics community engagement
[1:57:54] events we do um in San Carlos we meet
[1:57:57] once a month just uh my admin sergeant
[1:58:00] uh Nick's counterpart will meet with the
[1:58:02] traffic and planning commission just to
[1:58:04] go over any traffic complaints you know
[1:58:07] parking issues stuff like that. That's
[1:58:09] usually
[1:58:11] the schedule for San Carlos. And it's
[1:58:13] pretty much the same thing for Milbury.
[1:58:14] A yearly annual report to the city
[1:58:15] council. Same for Half Moon Bay. What
[1:58:17] we're trying to do is align them all
[1:58:18] kind of in the same time frame. So that
[1:58:20] way we can actually do an overall
[1:58:21] sheriff's office annual report to
[1:58:23] encompass everything. But at San Carlos,
[1:58:26] I would report to the council once a
[1:58:27] year on our annual report. And then we
[1:58:29] did uh monthly traffic meetings with the DPW. Okay. And Jason, in your
[1:58:35] experience, what is the proper reporting
[1:58:37] relationship versus maybe what we have?
[1:58:41] >> Yeah, for me in my last uh position in
[1:58:44] Hy Rica, we would oscillate uh once a
[1:58:47] you know two meetings a month. Uh the
[1:58:50] first meeting the fire chief would give
[1:58:51] an update to the council and then on the
[1:58:53] second meeting the police chief would
[1:58:55] address the council.
[1:58:57] >> Okay. Uh thank you. Thank you both. I'm
[1:59:00] just so council knows, I'm going to ask
[1:59:02] in deliberation for a straw pull on
[1:59:05] direction to uh change the relationship
[1:59:08] that we have with the sheriff's
[1:59:09] department to be a direct reporting
[1:59:10] relationship with council going forward.
[1:59:13] So, in addition to any comments you
[1:59:15] might have, and this sounds like there's
[1:59:16] going to be plenty, if you could just
[1:59:18] addendum this issue of what your
[1:59:20] thoughts are, I would very much
[1:59:22] appreciate it on the issue of reporting.
[1:59:25] Any other questions from council before
[1:59:26] we open up public comment?
[1:59:30] Okay,
[1:59:32] public comment. We are going to open
[1:59:34] public comment for old business item A,
[1:59:38] quarterly and annual review of license
[1:59:40] plate readers.
[1:59:42] Got three in the Zoom room and Kimberly
[1:59:44] Woo has been up for about an hour. So,
[1:59:46] why don't we start with her?
[1:59:51] » Hi, can you hear me?
[1:59:52] >> Yes, we can. Welcome.
[1:59:54] >> Thank you. Uh, good evening. I'm
[1:59:56] Kimberly Woo and I'm a community
[1:59:58] organizer for services immigrant rights
[2:00:00] and education network which serves our
[2:00:02] immigrant and refugee communities in
[2:00:04] Sanonteo County. And on behalf of Siren,
[2:00:07] I strongly urge Woodside to pause the
[2:00:09] AOPR program. It puts our communities in
[2:00:12] danger. AOPR data from neighboring
[2:00:15] communities has been hacked and misused,
[2:00:17] and this data has been shared with
[2:00:19] federal agencies that are violently
[2:00:21] attacking communities across the
[2:00:22] country. The Flock Company cannot be
[2:00:26] trusted as they impose dangerous
[2:00:28] surveillance tools with documented
[2:00:30] instances of ICE accessing this a AOPR
[2:00:34] data to terrorize our communities and
[2:00:35] separate our families. Simply auditing
[2:00:39] flock data regarding ICE cooperation
[2:00:41] could actually produce a false negative
[2:00:43] because according to DHS's own data
[2:00:46] policies, ICE does not leave any trail
[2:00:48] and audit logs on any ALPR except their
[2:00:52] own. In other words, we may not see if
[2:00:54] ICE access the town's data because ICE
[2:00:56] purposely and systematically refuses to
[2:00:59] leave trail. Additionally, even in the
[2:01:02] potential case that Woodside police data
[2:01:03] is not directly shared with ICE, our
[2:01:05] local police data is shared with other
[2:01:08] police departments who may collude and
[2:01:10] expose expose our personal data to ICE,
[2:01:13] granting this notorious notorious agency
[2:01:16] access to our private information. The
[2:01:19] power of flocks AOPR is to collect,
[2:01:21] retain, and analyze location data for
[2:01:23] every driver on the road violates our
[2:01:26] fourth amendment right to a reasonable
[2:01:28] expectation of privacy by essentially
[2:01:30] enabling mass warrantless tracking that
[2:01:33] stalks in an individual's movements to
[2:01:36] the second in a twist form of persistent
[2:01:40] draget surveillance. In fact, this
[2:01:42] technology creates such massive data
[2:01:44] privacy constitutional violations that
[2:01:47] Siren along with KO California as
[2:01:49] Foundation of Northern California and
[2:01:51] Electronic Frontier Foundation sued the
[2:01:54] city of San Jose for Flock and AOPR data
[2:01:57] extreme invasiveness. This town must end
[2:02:00] their flock contract because flocks
[2:02:02] unblinking cameras automatically retain
[2:02:04] the locations of drivers, enabling
[2:02:06] police tends instantly reconstruct
[2:02:09] everyone's movements. With Santa Cruz
[2:02:12] City Council ending their contract and
[2:02:14] Mountain View City Council pausing their
[2:02:16] contract, our Bay Area neighbors boldly
[2:02:19] send the message that community trust is
[2:02:22] necessary for public safety. We are
[2:02:25] calling on Woodside leadership to stop
[2:02:26] using flock cameras and ensure no town
[2:02:29] data is shared directly or indirectly
[2:02:31] with ICE or border patrol. Standing by
[2:02:34] our values means choosing community
[2:02:36] trust, privacy and and immigrant safety
[2:02:40] over unconstitutional
[2:02:42] hyper surveillance. Thank you.
[2:02:45] >> Thank you.
[2:02:48] Anyone in the room that would like to
[2:02:50] speak before we go back to Zoom? Yes,
[2:02:51] sir.
[2:02:58] Oh, thank you.
[2:03:02] >> Hey everyone. Um
[2:03:04] uh my name is Matt. I have a few uh just
[2:03:08] concerns about the the annual report.
[2:03:12] Probably the first of which was my notes
[2:03:13] got soaked on the way here, but I'll uh
[2:03:16] I'll do my best here. I really just want
[2:03:19] to ask the council uh just to pump the
[2:03:22] brakes on accepting uh this annual
[2:03:25] report. Right. Everyone in the room here
[2:03:28] has heard about what happened in
[2:03:30] Mountain View and I I personally I think
[2:03:33] that's kind of deeply disturbing. Um
[2:03:36] it's a good point that what was
[2:03:38] happening there was never uncovered by
[2:03:41] the reporting that was happening there.
[2:03:43] So, I think our our report kinds
[2:03:48] uh rethink. I think the report relies
[2:03:51] too heavily on self-certification by the
[2:03:54] vendor. Uh the report explicitly states
[2:03:57] that compliance means receiving an
[2:03:59] annual written confirmation from Flock.
[2:04:02] Uh we are accepting that the system is
[2:04:06] secure simply because the vendor wrote
[2:04:08] us a note saying it's secure in Mountain
[2:04:12] View. that same vendor enabled
[2:04:14] nationwide sharing without permission
[2:04:16] from the city. So, letter of asurances
[2:04:18] from a vendor that overrides security
[2:04:21] settings. To me, that does not sound
[2:04:23] like an audit. That sounds like a Trojan
[2:04:26] horse.
[2:04:28] There's a nationwide scandal in the last
[2:04:30] year that has been unfolding over
[2:04:32] Flock's I think lack of security. So the
[2:04:36] this model of self-certification is
[2:04:40] unacceptable in my view. Mountain View
[2:04:43] did not discover their own illegal
[2:04:46] vulnerabilities because Flock told them
[2:04:49] about it.
[2:04:50] They discovered it because they demanded
[2:04:52] their own investigation.
[2:04:54] And I I think it's wild that until
[2:04:57] tonight
[2:04:59] I didn't hear about any
[2:05:02] uh verification of the settings that are
[2:05:04] even in our dashboard. That should have
[2:05:06] been in the annual report and it was
[2:05:08] not.
[2:05:10] So the Woodside staff, town staff is
[2:05:13] accepting, recommending that we accept
[2:05:15] the report tonight. Um, but I I think
[2:05:20] continuing business as usual there
[2:05:23] ignores the reality of what's happening
[2:05:24] right now. We cannot continue just
[2:05:28] blindingly trusting a vendor that I
[2:05:31] think has lost the confidence of our
[2:05:33] community. So, I want to urge the
[2:05:36] council to reject the report tonight.
[2:05:40] um tell the sheriff's office that we
[2:05:42] need an independent audit, a technical
[2:05:45] audit, not just a policy alignment
[2:05:48] review, which is is what we have right
[2:05:50] now.
[2:05:52] I think our community uh just deserves a
[2:05:54] better approach. So, thank you.
[2:05:58] >> Thank you.
[2:06:01] We'll move back to the Zoom room.
[2:06:03] Michelle Leitus.
[2:06:06] >> Hi. Thank you.
[2:06:08] >> Hi. Um, my name is Michelle Leitis and I
[2:06:12] am a li lifelong Sanonteo County
[2:06:14] resident. I'm also a volunteer with the
[2:06:16] ACLU Sanontto County chapter, but I'm
[2:06:19] speaking today in my personal capacity.
[2:06:22] Um, I'm also here to request that you
[2:06:24] pause Woodid's ALPR program. Um, we're
[2:06:28] all members here in Sanonteo County. You
[2:06:30] know, we drive through Woodside, we dine
[2:06:32] in Woodside, we shop in Woodside. Even
[2:06:34] if we don't live there, we study there.
[2:06:37] We do um you know we we are subject to
[2:06:40] the cameras just as much as anyone um
[2:06:43] who lives there. And um we know that um
[2:06:48] this program puts the Woodside community
[2:06:51] in danger. The um the fact that um there
[2:06:57] hasn't been any problems with the
[2:06:58] Woodside data yet does not predict that
[2:07:01] there won't be future issues. It's great
[2:07:03] that there h, you know, that that
[2:07:05] nothing has been um discovered at this
[2:07:08] point that that um we've been able to
[2:07:11] get some assurances from the sheriff's
[2:07:13] department in terms of their review. Um
[2:07:16] we don't necessarily know what's going
[2:07:18] on with the um the work at at um
[2:07:21] Sanonteo PD and and Redwood City PD. I
[2:07:25] think there's a bit too much concern
[2:07:28] with um looking like you're accusing
[2:07:32] rather than just doing your job of
[2:07:34] auditing. Um and so that we want to make
[2:07:38] sure that our data continues to be safe
[2:07:41] and we know that it's not safe in
[2:07:43] Flock's hands. They have been caught in
[2:07:45] national reporting making one false
[2:07:48] statement after another about their
[2:07:50] technological controls and safety. uh
[2:07:52] their CEO claimed that Flock was
[2:07:55] limiting cross-state border access after
[2:07:57] data breaches across state lines were
[2:07:59] revealed by journalists. So I think it's
[2:08:02] really important the fact that you know
[2:08:05] Flock is also involved in providing
[2:08:08] support for audits or other um um policy
[2:08:12] compliance is a big red flag. Um, and I
[2:08:17] think that we need to pause and make
[2:08:21] sure that you're um you're you have full
[2:08:25] understanding uh and take the time to
[2:08:28] understand the high-risisk consequences
[2:08:30] of ALPR abuse. I think there's a little
[2:08:32] too much um acceptance of the status quo
[2:08:36] and the fact that oh well we give up
[2:08:38] privacy every time we drive um across a
[2:08:41] bridge so we should be able to give up
[2:08:43] privacy here as well. I think that's a
[2:08:46] little just too much um of a of uh just
[2:08:50] giving up and and not looking at the
[2:08:53] writing on the wall. And uh thank you
[2:08:56] for your consideration.
[2:08:59] » Thank you. Anyone here in the room that
[2:09:02] would like to go next as we alternate
[2:09:04] back and forth? Mr. Middleman.
[2:09:17] Good evening, David Middleman, Woodside
[2:09:19] Resident. Um, I had to throw out my
[2:09:22] original speech because you guys covered
[2:09:23] it all, but I wanted to touch on
[2:09:26] something that hasn't come up, which is
[2:09:30] uh
[2:09:32] blocks technical infrastructure. So for
[2:09:35] some those of you that don't know, I
[2:09:37] have 14 years experience in the
[2:09:38] technical industry. I lead software
[2:09:40] teams. I deal with PII and HIPPA data at
[2:09:44] a pharmaceutical company. I've dealt
[2:09:46] with IoT devices at other companies and for DARPA. And in past lives, I've
[2:09:53] held a security clearance.
[2:09:56] There were a lot of technical
[2:09:58] deficiencies that were found along with
[2:10:00] the operational trust deficiencies that
[2:10:04] occurred. The flock cameras that are out
[2:10:06] in town run an old discontinued
[2:10:11] non-patched up-to-date version of
[2:10:14] Android Things. Any new OS vulnerability
[2:10:18] discovered today will never receive an
[2:10:20] official fix, which means the only way
[2:10:22] to patch is to replace or fundamentally
[2:10:24] rearchitect that device. For a longived
[2:10:28] public safety program that locks
[2:10:29] Woodside in a permanent technical debt
[2:10:32] and known vulnerable software at the
[2:10:33] edge of our network,
[2:10:36] independent researchers have
[2:10:37] demonstrated that pressing a specific
[2:10:39] button sequence on the back of those
[2:10:41] cameras causes it to broadcast a Wi-Fi
[2:10:43] hotspot. Once connected, an attacker can
[2:10:46] enable the debugging bridge and obtain
[2:10:50] boot access to that device in 30
[2:10:52] seconds.
[2:10:53] Because there is no secure boot or
[2:10:55] strong firmware in integrity checking,
[2:10:58] an attacker can load their own firmware,
[2:11:00] falsely or suppress plate reads, or
[2:11:02] quietly exfiltrate data without the
[2:11:04] vendor or agency noticing.
[2:11:08] Cameras are configured with hardcode
[2:11:10] Wi-Fi SSIDs. It will automatically join
[2:11:13] a network with that name when that name
[2:11:16] is present which enables evil twin or
[2:11:19] rogue AP attacks from any nearby laptop
[2:11:21] or hotspot. Basically, you could drive
[2:11:24] up to a camera, get access to it.
[2:11:27] Traffic captures and public research
[2:11:29] have shown credentials and other
[2:11:30] sensitive information being sent without
[2:11:33] modern protections such as TLS
[2:11:35] encryption or controlled channels open
[2:11:38] the door for man-in-the-middle attacks.
[2:11:40] These cameras talk to our cell towers in
[2:11:42] town.
[2:11:45] The images and configuration data are
[2:11:47] stored unequipped on the device. And
[2:11:49] researchers have found legacy factory
[2:11:51] test images still present indicating
[2:11:53] poor data wiping practices and making
[2:11:55] physical theft of a camera a data
[2:11:57] breach. There's no mandatory two-factor
[2:12:00] authentication for officers like in town
[2:12:02] when we access our emails.
[2:12:06] And it is to note that Flock does have a
[2:12:09] SOCK 2 and ISO 2701
[2:12:13] certifications. Those certifications
[2:12:14] were issued in 2023 and 2024.
[2:12:20] However,
[2:12:22] those certifications are internal
[2:12:24] security and operational practices over
[2:12:25] time. They don't specify that devices
[2:12:27] are free of vulnerabilities. In other
[2:12:30] words, a system can be sock to compliant
[2:12:32] and so edge devices that can that are
[2:12:35] easy to compromise
[2:12:37] with single factor login and highly
[2:12:39] sensitive tools. Thank you.
[2:12:44] >> Thank you. Back to the Zoom room. Fixen
[2:12:47] San Mateo County.
[2:12:54] » Hi, I'm actually a person. I'm Nancy
[2:12:56] Goodban. I live in Redwood City. My
[2:12:58] brother-in-law does own a home in
[2:13:00] Woodside. I'm speaking on my own, not as
[2:13:03] a representative of any organization.
[2:13:06] Thank you for the time that you're
[2:13:09] taking to discuss this, and I agree with
[2:13:11] the others. Please look into pausing
[2:13:12] your flock safety contract. I know it
[2:13:15] would be at a later date, but Flock has
[2:13:17] announced plans to connect with data
[2:13:20] brokers. Their data has been used to
[2:13:21] surveil protesters, even to track down
[2:13:24] women who have had an illegal abortion.
[2:13:27] These kind of threats to the privacy of
[2:13:29] anyone who drives through Woodside are
[2:13:31] dangerous to community safety, and these
[2:13:33] dangers outweigh the benefits. I'm glad
[2:13:36] there's no breach yet, but it's happened
[2:13:39] elsewhere, and so it can happen here. It
[2:13:42] also makes it hard to trust the company.
[2:13:44] They are the ones that control the data.
[2:13:46] They control the software, and I, for
[2:13:49] one, am not confident in their promises.
[2:13:52] Flock has screwed up in other cities and
[2:13:54] made mistakes. It can't just be a matter
[2:13:57] of faith if it involves my personal
[2:14:00] privacy.
[2:14:02] Mountain View and Santa Cruz canled
[2:14:04] their contracts with Flock because the
[2:14:06] company misused the data and made it
[2:14:08] available for purposes that are against
[2:14:10] the county's policy, the city's
[2:14:12] policies. In Mountain View, they found
[2:14:14] it through an internal audit. Flock had
[2:14:17] turned on a data setting allowing the
[2:14:19] feds to access data. They say they won't
[2:14:21] do that again. I want to take it on
[2:14:25] something more than faith. Both cities
[2:14:27] concluded that even though the license
[2:14:29] plate data do help the police, the risk
[2:14:31] community privacy and safety is too
[2:14:34] high. Santa Cruz found that out of state
[2:14:36] agencies had access the data. They
[2:14:38] concluded the risk of generating fear in
[2:14:40] the community made the flock system too
[2:14:42] high a risk for the community. Half Moon
[2:14:45] Bay is looking at it the use of flock
[2:14:47] later this month or March in a balance
[2:14:50] between our personal privacy rights and
[2:14:53] the right of the government or a private
[2:14:55] company to use our data for its own
[2:14:59] purposes. Please come down on the side
[2:15:01] of our privacy rights. We have seen way
[2:15:04] too much overreach by the government in
[2:15:06] the last few months. We don't need more.
[2:15:09] Thank you.
[2:15:12] >> Thank you.
[2:15:14] I think we're gonna do we have anybody
[2:15:15] else? Yes. Come right back. Welcome.
[2:15:20] >> Thank you. Uh and thank you, Jason.
[2:15:22] There's actually three topics tonight
[2:15:23] we're going to talk on. This the second
[2:15:24] one. So, I appreciate the efficiency. Um
[2:15:27] you guys know I'm going to be here.
[2:15:28] We're here every single time. And I'll
[2:15:30] admit it was quite lonely for parts of
[2:15:32] the last three years. Uh I am heartened
[2:15:34] to see the number of people who have
[2:15:35] taken up the mantle on this one. Um
[2:15:37] unfortunately, I think it is because of
[2:15:38] a number of missteps that Flock has had.
[2:15:40] So, it's a sad reason to do it, but I'm
[2:15:42] glad to see the end result either way.
[2:15:44] Um, I want to start this by saying I
[2:15:47] support the sheriffs unilaterally. I
[2:15:48] think our sheriffs are fantastic. I want
[2:15:50] every criminal in this town or around us
[2:15:52] to go to jail for as long as possible,
[2:15:53] probably longer than the judges. I think
[2:15:55] sometimes that just gets conflated with,
[2:15:57] oh, you don't want this. No, I want them
[2:15:58] to go to jail and I want them to suffer
[2:15:59] and I want them to pay for the crimes
[2:16:01] they committed. This is not the way to
[2:16:02] do it at the cost we pay to do it. Um,
[2:16:05] I'm not going to go through all you.
[2:16:06] I've been here so many times. I strongly
[2:16:08] recommend you read David Middleman's
[2:16:10] letter. I just read through the whole
[2:16:11] thing. It covers almost everything I'm
[2:16:13] aware of about Flock and all of their
[2:16:15] terrible ways. The one that really got
[2:16:17] me was when I think it was in Virginia,
[2:16:19] a town like much like ours, maybe
[2:16:21] bigger, was debating the same thing. And
[2:16:23] the CEO of Flock wrote a mean, scary
[2:16:26] letter to the police chief accusing his
[2:16:29] residents of being anti- police
[2:16:31] agitators and some other nonsense. And
[2:16:34] the police chief very eloquently wrote
[2:16:35] back, "Actually, sir, this is democracy
[2:16:38] in action, and we respect our residents.
[2:16:40] It is the dirtiness of this company that
[2:16:42] is just gling, but you know what? The
[2:16:45] guy's a billionaire, so what do I what
[2:16:47] can I say? I'm not." Um, something else
[2:16:50] that I think was not yet public or was
[2:16:53] not ruled on before your last meeting
[2:16:55] about this, and by the way, I know
[2:16:56] you're not voting on the contract now.
[2:16:57] I'm well aware. You guys know that in
[2:17:00] Washington in November, a judge ruled
[2:17:02] that these photos are public records.
[2:17:05] That's obviously Washington, not
[2:17:06] California. But if that turns out to be
[2:17:09] true, that entire database that is
[2:17:12] supposed to only be accessible by our
[2:17:13] sheriffs, I could get all of your
[2:17:15] plates, go out, take them, and be like,
[2:17:16] "Hey, mayor, you were here, here, here, everywhere for everybody in
[2:17:20] this town." We are creating that
[2:17:22] database. And what I've said before is
[2:17:24] we do not want to be generating this
[2:17:25] data. That is the fundamental problem.
[2:17:27] It's not the Fourth Amendment. It's not
[2:17:28] the camera. It's the generation and
[2:17:30] networking of the data that is a
[2:17:31] problem. I will leave this with with
[2:17:34] this statement. Two things can be true
[2:17:35] at the same time. It is a useful tool
[2:17:37] for the sheriffs to conduct law
[2:17:39] enforcement. No doubt. It can also be an
[2:17:42] awful invasion of our privacy and run by
[2:17:44] a terrible company. Sorry, ma'am. Your
[2:17:47] company is awful. Um that we do not want
[2:17:50] to trust our stuff with. It's a company.
[2:17:51] I can I have a first amendment right to
[2:17:54] berate a company. It is not a person. I
[2:17:57] have no problems with her company.
[2:17:58] >> You got to direct. You got to direct.
[2:18:00] >> Flock is an awful company. We should not
[2:18:02] pay the money.
[2:18:02] >> Thank you for directing it to me.
[2:18:06] » If if you guys decide to change it, all
[2:18:09] I will say to you is thank you because
[2:18:11] there's no gloating anywhere. There's no
[2:18:12] anything. We should just do what's right
[2:18:14] based on the information we have. If you
[2:18:16] do decide to do it, I will come and
[2:18:18] thank you. And the last thing I'll leave
[2:18:19] is in I have an ALPR of my own at my
[2:18:23] house. I'd be happy to register it with
[2:18:25] the town and the sheriffs and if the
[2:18:27] other residents did it, we could have
[2:18:28] our own internal network where if
[2:18:30] something did happen, they could ping
[2:18:32] the residents who were willing to share
[2:18:33] their data and we I'd gladly give it to
[2:18:36] them. So that's something we could do on
[2:18:37] our own. Doesn't involve flock. Thank
[2:18:38] you.
[2:18:39] >> Thank you. And we'll be back in the Zoom
[2:18:42] room with Sarah Matlin.
[2:18:47] » Good evening. My name is Sarah Matlin
[2:18:49] and I live in nearby Redwood City. I'm a
[2:18:51] volunteer with the ACLU cemeter chapter,
[2:18:54] but I'm speaking today in my personal
[2:18:55] capacity. In my personal capacity, I
[2:18:58] often meet with friends and clients at
[2:19:00] the village hub and I stop the village
[2:19:01] bakery in the cafe uh bakery cafe after
[2:19:04] hiking in Woodside. Uh this annual
[2:19:06] review, yes, is to see if Woodside's
[2:19:08] ALPR system is in compliance with its
[2:19:11] policy. And the answer from manager led
[2:19:13] better is it's a matter of faith. That's
[2:19:17] not enough. Please pause with Woodside's
[2:19:19] ALPR program. When the title of town of
[2:19:22] Woodside first installed its ALPR
[2:19:25] system, town leaders may not have fully
[2:19:26] known how ALPRs could put Woodside
[2:19:29] community members at risk. But now we
[2:19:31] know that 71 police departments in
[2:19:33] California unintentionally or
[2:19:35] intentionally have violated the state
[2:19:37] law that prohibits them from sharing
[2:19:40] ALPR data with federal and out ofstate
[2:19:42] law enforcement agencies, including the
[2:19:44] federal agencies that are violently
[2:19:46] attacking communities across the
[2:19:48] country. Even if we can trust individual
[2:19:51] officers to do the right thing, we can't
[2:19:52] trust FLOP. Flock previously instituted
[2:19:55] that side door customs and border patrol
[2:19:57] pilot project that police departments
[2:19:59] did not know about. It's my
[2:20:01] understanding that this project is only
[2:20:02] paused right now. It's not been formally
[2:20:05] ended. And uh uh in addition, the
[2:20:08] Mountain Police Chief explained very
[2:20:10] clearly that Flock turned on the
[2:20:12] national bookup setting for
[2:20:14] approximately three months from August
[2:20:16] 14th, 2024 until sometime in November of
[2:20:19] that year. He gave those those specific
[2:20:21] dates. It doesn't matter that they
[2:20:23] weren't paying for the program. Slot
[2:20:25] violated their free contract with
[2:20:27] Mountain View and we can't trust ICE. As
[2:20:30] mentioned previously, when they hack the
[2:20:31] AL ALPR databases or when they do it
[2:20:34] through a daisy chain, they have been
[2:20:36] instructed to leave no trace. Your ALPR
[2:20:40] program risks the safety of any
[2:20:42] individuals traveling in Woodside.
[2:20:44] Whether they're a Woodside residents
[2:20:46] just drive driving through, hiking
[2:20:48] through, eating their way through, or
[2:20:50] whether they are immigrants or people
[2:20:52] seeking reproductive care, or people who
[2:20:54] are under attack in other communities.
[2:20:57] To protect everyone who lives and visits
[2:21:00] Woodside, the town council should pause
[2:21:02] its license plate cameras. With
[2:21:04] knowledge of these widespread violations
[2:21:06] of local policies and state laws, the
[2:21:09] town of Woodside has a now has a greater
[2:21:11] responsibility to make sure its ALPR
[2:21:13] system does not endanger community
[2:21:15] safety. You have the responsibility to
[2:21:17] protect the community from the
[2:21:18] high-risisk consequences of ALPR abuse.
[2:21:21] And that's why you should pause
[2:21:22] Woodsight's ALPR program this evening.
[2:21:25] do not accept the audit given the number
[2:21:28] of of open questions that uh there was
[2:21:30] no clear answer to other than it's a
[2:21:33] matter of faith. Please do not accept
[2:21:36] this report as sufficient in answering
[2:21:38] the open questions that have been posed
[2:21:41] this evening and please pause your ALPR
[2:21:44] program. Please put this up for a vote.
[2:21:46] Thank you.
[2:21:48] >> Thank you. Any other comments from the
[2:21:52] all?
[2:21:55] Seeing none, any comments from Zoom.
[2:21:57] Last call.
[2:22:00] Okay, we'll close public comment um and
[2:22:03] open up deliberations.
[2:22:05] And uh I know we have some ground to
[2:22:07] cover uh but if I could ask at least as
[2:22:10] a starting point as an addendum to your
[2:22:12] shared perspectives to just also if you
[2:22:14] could comment on how you'd like to see
[2:22:16] the reporting relationship evolve or not
[2:22:18] with our sheriffs. And of course if any
[2:22:21] member of the council wants to also add
[2:22:24] uh a motion in there that see if there
[2:22:26] could be majority behind that motion as
[2:22:28] well for future direction on anything.
[2:22:30] please mention that and then you know
[2:22:33] again try to build uh we'll try to build
[2:22:35] with whatever we hear from everybody as
[2:22:37] we go up and down the line. Um
[2:22:41] I think you earned the right to go first
[2:22:43] council member Wall.
[2:22:44] >> All right. Um, so fellow council members
[2:22:48] and uh members of the public and our
[2:22:50] Woodside residents that are here
[2:22:51] tonight, I'd like to begin by thanking
[2:22:54] the town manager and the San Mo County
[2:22:57] Sheriff's Office for the quarterly and
[2:22:59] annual reports provided this evening.
[2:23:03] We all share a fundamental commitment to
[2:23:05] the safety of Woodside residents. The
[2:23:08] recovery of stolen vehicles and the
[2:23:10] apprehension of suspects, such as the
[2:23:12] March 2025 arrest following a hit near
[2:23:15] Sand Hill Road, demonstrate that ALPR
[2:23:18] technology, can be a functional tool for
[2:23:21] local law enforcement. However, our duty
[2:23:25] as a council is not only to provide
[2:23:27] tools to the sheriff's office, but to
[2:23:29] ensure these tools are used in a manner
[2:23:32] that is legal, fiscally responsible, and
[2:23:36] respectful of the community we
[2:23:38] represent.
[2:23:39] Public safety is built on a foundation
[2:23:41] of public trust. When a vendor fails to
[2:23:45] meet its contractual obligations or
[2:23:48] undermines our local policies, that
[2:23:50] trust is compromised.
[2:23:53] As we review the data tonight, we must
[2:23:55] look beyond the compliant labels in our
[2:23:58] internal audits and address the
[2:24:00] significant negative press coverage
[2:24:02] surrounding flock safety.
[2:24:04] We are seeing a documented pattern of
[2:24:06] behavior from this vendor that suggests
[2:24:09] they are no longer
[2:24:11] a reliable partner for our town. and I
[2:24:14] have several concerns that I believe we
[2:24:16] must address before moving forward with
[2:24:18] any further expansion or renewal of this
[2:24:21] contract.
[2:24:24] Our town policy was carefully drafted to
[2:24:26] ensure that Woodid's data remains on a
[2:24:29] short lease. Short leash. We explicitly
[2:24:32] authorized only three specific agencies.
[2:24:36] the San Monteo County Sheriff's Office,
[2:24:38] the San Monteo PD, and the Redwood City
[2:24:41] PD to access our system. Yet, the recent
[2:24:45] reporting from our neighbors in Mountain
[2:24:47] View, Menllo Park, and other peer
[2:24:49] communities should really give us all
[2:24:51] pause.
[2:24:53] In Mountain View, an internal audit
[2:24:55] revealed that a nationwide lookup
[2:24:57] setting was enabled without the city's
[2:25:00] permission. For months, federal agencies
[2:25:04] from as far away as Kentucky and
[2:25:07] Virginia were searching Mountain View's
[2:25:09] license plate data. Perhaps even worse,
[2:25:13] a statewide lookup tool was active for
[2:25:16] 17 months, allowing more than 250
[2:25:20] unauthorized agencies to conduct over
[2:25:23] 600,000
[2:25:25] searches of their data.
[2:25:28] We have heard from Flock that sharing
[2:25:31] settings are always under the control of
[2:25:33] the agency, but the evidence from
[2:25:36] Mountain View contradicts that claim.
[2:25:39] Their chief of police stated bluntly
[2:25:41] that he no longer has confidence in this
[2:25:44] particular vendor. After discovering
[2:25:47] these circumventions of local policies
[2:25:51] in Menllo Park, tens of thousands of
[2:25:54] searches were conducted by departments
[2:25:57] in Texas and Illinois despite state laws
[2:26:00] and local policies that strictly forbid
[2:26:04] sharing data with outofstate agencies.
[2:26:08] If these nearby municipalities, which
[2:26:10] have rigorous oversight, could not
[2:26:13] prevent their data from being accessed
[2:26:15] by hundreds of unauthorized outside
[2:26:18] entities, we must ask ourselves, how can
[2:26:22] we be certain that Woodside's 3.1
[2:26:26] million annual plate reads are not being
[2:26:28] harvested by the same agencies?
[2:26:33] My second concern is the practical risk
[2:26:35] this technology poses to the privacy of
[2:26:37] our residents.
[2:26:39] We are currently seeing ALPR data being
[2:26:42] leveraged for purposes that far exceed
[2:26:45] the bonafide law enforcement
[2:26:47] investigations that we authorized.
[2:26:50] A disturbing case in Johnson in Johnson
[2:26:52] County, Texas serves as a warning.
[2:26:56] A deputy there used a nationwide Block
[2:26:58] search to track a woman for quote
[2:27:01] unquote self-administered abortion. For
[2:27:04] months, Block and the local sheriff
[2:27:07] characterized this as a missing person
[2:27:09] welfare check. It was only after public
[2:27:12] records were released that the truth
[2:27:14] came out. It was in fact a criminal
[2:27:16] investigation into reproductive
[2:27:17] healthcare.
[2:27:19] While this specific search may have
[2:27:21] originated in Texas, it queried over
[2:27:24] 83,000
[2:27:26] cameras across the country. This is not
[2:27:29] just a social issue. It's a governance
[2:27:32] issue. When we contract with a vendor
[2:27:35] whose system architecture allows a
[2:27:38] single officer in another state to
[2:27:40] search our residents movements for
[2:27:42] investigations that would be illegal
[2:27:44] under California law, we are exposing
[2:27:47] our town to significant liability and
[2:27:50] violating California's shield laws that
[2:27:52] our state legislature has passed to
[2:27:55] prevent this exact scenario.
[2:27:58] Furthermore, investigations by the EFF
[2:28:01] have shown that the reason fields for
[2:28:04] searches are often filled with vague
[2:28:07] terms like test, investigation.
[2:28:10] They've even seen slurs. In some
[2:28:13] instances, the technology has even been
[2:28:15] used for personal vendettas, such as a
[2:28:18] Kansas police chief who tracked his
[2:28:20] girlfriend's vehicle 228 times. Our own
[2:28:24] audit tonight reviewed only 40 random
[2:28:28] searches out of nearly 118,000
[2:28:34] queries.
[2:28:35] This is an audit of less than 0.04%
[2:28:40] of activity. This is not an adequate
[2:28:43] safeguard for a system of this scale.
[2:28:48] We also must consider the technical and
[2:28:51] professional stability of the vendor
[2:28:53] itself. In November 2025, security
[2:28:56] researchers published findings showing
[2:28:59] that Flock cameras are running on
[2:29:01] outdated Android 8 software that has not
[2:29:05] received security updates since 2021.
[2:29:09] These cameras are physically and
[2:29:11] digitally v vulnerable with unencrypted
[2:29:14] data storage that has been found to
[2:29:16] retain images far longer than the
[2:29:19] advertised period.
[2:29:21] As a council, we are responsible for the
[2:29:24] security of the infrastructure we
[2:29:26] approve. The trust center Flock provides
[2:29:29] is not a substitute for a secure
[2:29:32] technical architecture.
[2:29:34] When we when we see reports of
[2:29:37] hard-coded Wi-Fi network names that
[2:29:40] allow hackers to gain complete control
[2:29:42] of a camera, we are looking at a
[2:29:45] technical house of cards.
[2:29:48] The response from Flock's leadership to
[2:29:50] these legitimate concerns has been
[2:29:52] equally troubling. In December 2025, CEO
[2:29:56] Garrett Langley sent an email to law
[2:29:58] enforcement clients attacking the very
[2:30:01] concept of public oversight,
[2:30:03] characterizing critics of surveillance
[2:30:06] as nihilists who want to normalize
[2:30:08] lawlessness.
[2:30:10] This is not the language of a
[2:30:12] professional services provider. It is
[2:30:15] the language of a company that views
[2:30:17] democratic accountability as a
[2:30:19] coordinated attack.
[2:30:21] As we deliberate tonight, we must ask
[2:30:24] each of ourselves, what is the risk of
[2:30:27] doing nothing?
[2:30:29] What is the risk of simply accepting
[2:30:31] this report and moving on without
[2:30:34] demanding a more robust audit?
[2:30:38] Well, from a legal standpoint, the town
[2:30:40] of Woodside faces significant exposure.
[2:30:45] California's SB34 and SB 107, our
[2:30:49] state's reproductive healthc care shield
[2:30:51] laws, are not mere suggestions. They are
[2:30:54] mandates. If it is discovered that
[2:30:56] Woodside's data was shared with out of
[2:30:58] state agencies for abortion related or
[2:31:01] immigration investigations because we as
[2:31:04] a council failed to exercise due
[2:31:06] diligence, the town could face costly
[2:31:08] litigation and civil penalties. We have
[2:31:11] already seen the California Attorney
[2:31:13] General sue the city of Elcohone for
[2:31:16] these exact types of data sharing
[2:31:18] violations. As council members, we have
[2:31:22] a fiduciary duty to mitigate these
[2:31:24] risks. Ignoring documented evidence of
[2:31:27] vendor non-compliance is not playing it
[2:31:29] safe. It's inviting a lawsuit.
[2:31:32] Furthermore, there is profound
[2:31:34] reputational risk to this body and to us
[2:31:37] individually as elected officials. And I
[2:31:40] believe we're at a turning point. Our
[2:31:42] neighbors in Mountain View, Menllo Park,
[2:31:44] Santa Clara County, and several others
[2:31:47] have already faced the fallout of these
[2:31:49] unauthorized data leaks. If Woodside
[2:31:52] becomes the next headline because we
[2:31:54] chose to ignore the red flags raised by
[2:31:56] investigative journalists and
[2:31:58] neighboring police chiefs, we will have
[2:32:00] failed in our role as stewards of the
[2:32:02] public trust. Residents will rightly ask
[2:32:05] why we continue to to trust a system
[2:32:08] that was demonstrably compromised
[2:32:10] elsewhere. In action today will be seen
[2:32:13] as an endorsement of the vendor's
[2:32:14] practices tomorrow.
[2:32:17] And Woodside is not alone in these
[2:32:19] concerns. In the past year, nearly 30
[2:32:23] jurisdictions, including our neighbors
[2:32:25] in Los Altos Hills and Santa Cruz, have
[2:32:28] canled or declined to renew their flock
[2:32:31] contracts.
[2:32:33] Santa Clara County has delayed its
[2:32:35] renewal pending a full investigation
[2:32:37] into unauthorized data sharing and
[2:32:39] federal uh with federal authorities.
[2:32:42] I believe in providing our sheriff
[2:32:44] deputies with the resources they need to
[2:32:47] keep Woodside safe. However, safety also
[2:32:50] requires that we protect our residents
[2:32:52] from the overreaching surveillance and
[2:32:54] insecure technology. We cannot simply
[2:32:58] infer or trust or review and accept this
[2:33:02] report when the when the vendor
[2:33:04] providing the data is facing a
[2:33:06] nationwide crisis of trust. So I'm
[2:33:09] respectfully asking my colleagues to
[2:33:11] consider the following.
[2:33:13] We should pause the program and the
[2:33:16] installation of any additional cameras,
[2:33:18] including the one requested for running
[2:33:20] me, until we have a full explanation
[2:33:22] from Flock regarding the unauthorized
[2:33:24] lookup settings found in other cities.
[2:33:28] We absolutely need a more robust audit
[2:33:31] process. Checking 40 searches out of
[2:33:34] 118,000
[2:33:35] is insufficient to ensure that our
[2:33:37] policy is being followed.
[2:33:40] And most importantly, we must direct our
[2:33:42] town manager to explore alternative
[2:33:44] vendors. We need a partner that respects
[2:33:47] local control, prioritizes cyber
[2:33:50] security, and understands that in a
[2:33:52] democracy, transparency is not an
[2:33:54] attack. It's an obligation.
[2:33:57] To fulfill our responsibility to this
[2:33:59] community, we must move beyond the
[2:34:01] current reporting structure. The
[2:34:03] quarterly and annual reports you receive
[2:34:05] are currently prepared by the town
[2:34:07] manager's office, staffed by dedicated
[2:34:10] municipal employees, but individuals who
[2:34:13] are not experts in data privacy, cyber
[2:34:16] security, or digital forensic auditing.
[2:34:19] Expecting a town manager to verify the
[2:34:22] architectural integrity of a nationwide
[2:34:24] surveillance database and program is
[2:34:27] neither fair to staff nor effective for
[2:34:30] our oversight duties. Therefore, my
[2:34:33] final recommendation is that the town of
[2:34:34] Woodside immediately transition to a
[2:34:36] third-party audit model. We should hire
[2:34:39] an independent firm with specific
[2:34:41] technical expertise in privacy and
[2:34:43] security to conduct our ALPR reviews.
[2:34:47] This external auditor would be tasked
[2:34:48] with verifying that our data is not
[2:34:50] being accessed by unauthorized federal
[2:34:52] or out of state agencies and that the
[2:34:54] vendor is meeting the highest standards
[2:34:56] of encryption and security.
[2:34:59] Replacing our internal reports with a
[2:35:01] professional independent audit is a
[2:35:04] common sense measure. It provides the
[2:35:06] council with the expert analysis we need
[2:35:09] to make informed decisions. And it
[2:35:11] provides the public with the assurance
[2:35:12] that their privacy is being protected by
[2:35:15] more than just a vendor's promise.
[2:35:18] If we are to maintain the trust of this
[2:35:20] community, we must show that we are
[2:35:22] willing to hold our vendors accountable
[2:35:24] when they fail to meet our standards.
[2:35:27] Safety and privacy are not mutually
[2:35:29] exclusive. They both require a vendor we
[2:35:32] can trust and oversight we can verify.
[2:35:35] Based on the evidence we have seen
[2:35:37] tonight and over the last few months, I
[2:35:39] do not believe Flock Safety is a vendor.
[2:35:42] Nor do I is it is is that vendor, nor do
[2:35:45] I believe our current oversight model is
[2:35:47] sufficient to protect the people of
[2:35:49] Woodside.
[2:35:50] Thank you.
[2:35:53] Uh, and where are you on sheriff
[2:35:55] reporting relationship?
[2:35:57] >> Um, so yeah, if I'm interpreting your um
[2:36:02] suggestion, so this is actually a a
[2:36:05] nuance that I hadn't appreciated. So
[2:36:08] you're saying that currently the sheriff
[2:36:11] rather than say having a reporting
[2:36:13] relationship to the town manager reports
[2:36:16] to a committee. I'm saying that
[2:36:18] currently the sheriff's department um
[2:36:22] goes to the circulation committee.
[2:36:24] um are volunteers.
[2:36:29] Uh we I I don't I feel shielded a little
[2:36:32] bit by not I don't feel like we have
[2:36:34] great governance. I don't feel like I
[2:36:36] know what's happening uh the way I
[2:36:38] should. And I think that it would be
[2:36:40] helpful if the sheriff's department uh
[2:36:43] as our number one line item and with all
[2:36:45] these safety issues and with the cameras
[2:36:47] and everything else that's going on that
[2:36:49] we would adopt a uh a reporting
[2:36:52] relationship that would be a direct
[2:36:53] reporting rel relationship which I think
[2:36:55] would be appropriate and good municipal
[2:36:56] governance.
[2:36:58] >> Um well, first I'll say I'm I'm very
[2:37:01] curious for my fellow council members to
[2:37:02] weigh in on the proposals that I just
[2:37:04] made but all to to address your
[2:37:07] suggestions. So, you know, I was a
[2:37:09] member of the circulation committee for
[2:37:12] uh a year or so and um I never saw the
[2:37:17] sheriff's presence at the circulation
[2:37:19] committee as creating a reporting
[2:37:22] relationship and in in a governance
[2:37:23] sense, right? Um there was no um
[2:37:28] yeah, that that in my mind that's not
[2:37:30] what I observed or I experienced. I
[2:37:32] think the sheriff um showed up and
[2:37:35] offered really valuable information
[2:37:38] about the number of traffic stops in the
[2:37:40] community and other um factual details
[2:37:43] to help inform the circulation
[2:37:45] committee's um agenda deliberations,
[2:37:49] etc. So, I I would want to see that
[2:37:51] continue. Uh that being said, I'm 100%
[2:37:54] in support of establishing a more robust
[2:37:58] uh governance relationship between the
[2:37:59] town of Woodside and the and the
[2:38:01] sheriff's office. I think like you said,
[2:38:03] it's one of our it's either the number
[2:38:05] one or or one of the top um you know uh
[2:38:10] costs to the town of Woodside. And so I
[2:38:12] think um we absolutely need to to manage
[2:38:16] that relationship closely. And um so
[2:38:18] yeah, I think that's a long-winded
[2:38:20] saying long-winded way of saying I would
[2:38:21] very much support a more robust
[2:38:23] governance relationship between uh the
[2:38:25] town manager and the sheriff's office.
[2:38:28] >> Uh so that's slightly different than
[2:38:30] what my ask was. So you are not
[2:38:32] supportive of moving the sheriff
[2:38:34] directly reporting to council. You want
[2:38:36] to keep the sheriff continuing to
[2:38:37] present at circulation.
[2:38:40] >> I don't think that's exactly what I'm
[2:38:41] saying. I think I I I don't view the
[2:38:45] sheriff's reporting to circulation as
[2:38:48] creating a a governance or uh a
[2:38:51] reporting relationship in the governance
[2:38:53] sense. I mean, they certainly are
[2:38:54] reporting information. Um so I don't
[2:38:57] think that we need to change anything
[2:38:59] about how the sheriff shows up at
[2:39:00] circulation committee, but I think we
[2:39:02] should establish a uh governance
[2:39:05] relationship between the town manager
[2:39:07] and the sheriff.
[2:39:11] Okay. Thank you. Uh, all right. I've got
[2:39:14] one, two, three, or five items. Uh, so I
[2:39:17] don't know if anybody like like to go
[2:39:18] next on any perspectives and then I'll
[2:39:21] just ask these five items that have been
[2:39:23] put forth from this
[2:39:26] as well.
[2:39:27] >> I'll I'll I'll jump in.
[2:39:29] >> Okay.
[2:39:30] And uh first I'd like to point out that
[2:39:33] there's Woodside has a long history with
[2:39:36] the sheriff's department and we've
[2:39:38] always found to be very very trustful,
[2:39:42] very high level of integrity and very
[2:39:45] honest with us. Um there's no evidence
[2:39:48] of violations in the way they've been
[2:39:50] handling flock with us. Um,
[2:39:54] there's there's no hard evidence that
[2:39:56] says how many
[2:39:59] crimes have been prevented
[2:40:02] because of flock, but I can tell you my
[2:40:04] own personal experiences. The other day,
[2:40:07] walked out the door. My I live on
[2:40:09] Northgate, one of the streets that has
[2:40:10] the Flock camera, and there were two
[2:40:13] unoccupied vehicles parked next door,
[2:40:17] unoccupied, nobody's around. My first
[2:40:20] instinct is we better call the sheriff
[2:40:21] and say what are we going to do. Then I
[2:40:23] realize I look up there's a flock sign.
[2:40:26] Guy wouldn't be crazy enough to try to
[2:40:28] break into a house right underneath the
[2:40:30] flock sign. And that tells me that there
[2:40:34] is a a a strong evidence that it's going
[2:40:38] to be a um reduction of our crime and
[2:40:41] continue to reduce crime in Woodside.
[2:40:44] Um, so I'm I'm very much in favor of
[2:40:48] what they have been doing. Can we
[2:40:50] improve it? I don't know. I'm not sure
[2:40:52] the evidence is any problems in
[2:40:55] Woodside.
[2:40:57] Nobody tonight has said that there were
[2:40:58] any issues that come up with Flock and
[2:41:01] the way it's been managed in Woodside.
[2:41:03] Um and in terms of privacy issues which
[2:41:09] were brought up when we first came into
[2:41:10] flock as well as every quarter it come
[2:41:13] seems to come up. I want to point out to
[2:41:15] everybody and then you know this is your
[2:41:18] credit information in case you didn't
[2:41:20] know it is on the dark web which
[2:41:24] everybody's priv is available on the
[2:41:27] dark web. I know that because I've been
[2:41:28] talking to um credit fraud companies
[2:41:31] about, you know, personal
[2:41:34] protection and they told me about every
[2:41:36] all of your evidence of all of your
[2:41:38] finances all over the dark web. So that
[2:41:42] is not a privacy. If you think that's a
[2:41:44] protection, um I'd also point out that
[2:41:48] um Google
[2:41:51] sells your information for heaven's
[2:41:52] sakes. um you go into Safeway, you go
[2:41:56] down the aisle, they're picking up
[2:41:58] information about what you buy and when
[2:42:01] you're buying it. Um and so I don't know
[2:42:06] where
[2:42:07] I would would go further um in terms of
[2:42:10] changing what we're doing with the uh
[2:42:13] the sheriff department and flock at this
[2:42:15] point. Um I I understand what you I
[2:42:18] said, Jen, I go I commend you the amount
[2:42:20] of work you put into this. Um, I'm just
[2:42:23] not sure I'm ready to say do a whole
[2:42:25] scale change stop because there's some a few instances around the country
[2:42:32] and I I'm I'm
[2:42:36] keep in mind how many transactions occur
[2:42:38] throughout the law enforcement world
[2:42:41] annually daily and we're talking about a
[2:42:45] uh a relatively small number of
[2:42:47] instances where information has been
[2:42:49] improperly disclosed.
[2:42:51] um having one one in one officer in one
[2:42:54] community using it to go after his his
[2:42:58] wife or spouse or girlfriend. That's on
[2:43:01] television for heaven's sakes. I've seen
[2:43:03] plenty of programs about that. Um and
[2:43:06] it's an individual instance. I don't
[2:43:09] think it has anything to do with block
[2:43:11] as being it's just one more tool they
[2:43:13] might use for that, but it's an
[2:43:15] individual problem. So, as far as
[2:43:17] reporting to the council, yes, I'm all
[2:43:20] for that. Uh, I think I'd like to have
[2:43:23] more input. Um, and I've seen the
[2:43:26] circulation committee and what the the
[2:43:28] sheriff does with the circulation
[2:43:29] committee because I'm the leazison on
[2:43:31] that. Um, I think that information is
[2:43:33] very good for them, but the council
[2:43:35] should be seeing that information and if
[2:43:38] there any action to be taken, it should
[2:43:39] be taken by the council ultimately um to
[2:43:42] act on it.
[2:43:44] So, that's what I have to say.
[2:43:46] >> Thank you. Let me just uh for uh sake of
[2:43:49] clarity go through the other four items.
[2:43:51] Um there was a motion to give direction
[2:43:54] to pause the program and installations.
[2:43:56] You are a yes or a no?
[2:43:58] >> No.
[2:43:59] >> There was a motion to uh for more robust
[2:44:03] audit searches.
[2:44:06] >> No.
[2:44:07] >> There was a motion for explore
[2:44:10] um alternate vendors.
[2:44:12] >> No.
[2:44:14] There was a motion to transition to a
[2:44:16] third party audit
[2:44:18] uh company.
[2:44:20] >> No.
[2:44:21] >> Okay.
[2:44:24] Who's next?
[2:44:26] >> I can go.
[2:44:27] >> Thank you, Council Member Abish.
[2:44:29] >> Thank you. Um
[2:44:32] this is uh this is a lot to think about.
[2:44:34] I I have to say I I really appreciate uh
[2:44:37] Council Member Wall um all the points
[2:44:40] you raised and and you also uh Council
[2:44:43] Member Brown. Um I do appreciate that
[2:44:47] this that there are major privacy risks.
[2:44:50] Um, and but but when I personally when I
[2:44:54] take a step back, I care most about
[2:44:57] safety and of the community, of my kids
[2:45:00] selfishly, my family, everybody around
[2:45:04] me, my neighbors, my friends. Um, and
[2:45:08] what I view as one of the biggest risks
[2:45:09] is is criminals. I mean, I don't I don't
[2:45:11] think that there's, you know, like a any
[2:45:14] significant chance that we're going to
[2:45:15] get
[2:45:17] um, you know, something's going to
[2:45:18] happen in Woodside. I think it's a
[2:45:19] pretty safe place, but I mean, I've
[2:45:22] known people that have died. I know
[2:45:24] somebody, one of my close high school
[2:45:25] friends got killed in a convenience
[2:45:28] store and never caught the person who
[2:45:30] did it. Um I I've known uh somebody else
[2:45:34] who got um lost their daughter because
[2:45:38] of a a horrible accident where somebody
[2:45:40] was fleeing a crime scene. And you know
[2:45:43] I I consider those the real risks in my life. The things that I when I
[2:45:48] think about them I don't want you know I
[2:45:50] want to do what I can to prevent them.
[2:45:52] And so for me that is a tangible risk
[2:45:55] that that this the flock system you know
[2:45:57] with its flaws
[2:46:00] it's going to it creates some protection
[2:46:04] you know where we we are going to have
[2:46:06] uh you know if if a criminal does
[2:46:09] something horrific or even you know a
[2:46:11] relatively minor crime and starts
[2:46:13] fleeing through Woodside
[2:46:15] I like to know that there is some safety
[2:46:18] net there's some protection that
[2:46:20] somebody's going to catch um uh that
[2:46:22] there is a system in place that's going
[2:46:24] to prevent it. They're not going to, you
[2:46:26] know, come flying through
[2:46:28] and, you know, look for a place to hide
[2:46:30] out and, you know, hopefully run in, you
[2:46:33] know, me or my family. Um I'd like to
[2:46:37] know that that doesn't exist. And, you
[2:46:38] know, and I when I think about it,
[2:46:40] privacy, yes, I I 100% agree. Um, I I
[2:46:46] worked in law school. I worked uh
[2:46:49] temporarily um I did an internship with
[2:46:52] the California Attorney General's office
[2:46:54] uh and for the privacy sector
[2:46:57] specifically going after companies that
[2:46:58] were violating privacy uh issues and I
[2:47:01] so I 100% value it. Um, but I I feel
[2:47:04] like what relative to the other privacy
[2:47:08] risks that we're looking at right now,
[2:47:11] when you consider it in the scope of
[2:47:14] everything, I was just reading about uh
[2:47:16] Ring Central cameras can now identify a
[2:47:19] dog that's run away. If you're if you're
[2:47:22] if you lost your dog, you can somehow
[2:47:25] upload a picture of it into Ring Central
[2:47:27] and it'll scan their whole system and
[2:47:30] help you find your dog. And I would be
[2:47:32] shocked if if it didn't work with
[2:47:34] humans. I mean, you know, or or
[2:47:36] whatever. I mean, license plates.
[2:47:38] There's so much information now. And the
[2:47:40] same I I was just reading about it.
[2:47:42] Google,
[2:47:44] I believe it was Google uh settled
[2:47:46] another lawsuit, you know, for you know,
[2:47:48] hey Google, and then or you don't say
[2:47:50] hey Google, you say something else and
[2:47:51] it sounds like it and suddenly it's
[2:47:53] recording. And the same with Siri. I
[2:47:55] remember lawsuits with that. And um you
[2:47:58] know uh anytime you use a map
[2:48:00] application, I'm sure they have your
[2:48:02] data. I'm sure they're linked. You know,
[2:48:04] they they have an they know who you are.
[2:48:07] They they can track it, your your cell
[2:48:10] phone, social media. I mean, our data is
[2:48:12] everywhere. So, this is this is one of
[2:48:14] the few instances where I feel like we
[2:48:16] have a an application. Is it perfect?
[2:48:20] No. Um is it are there risks? It sounds
[2:48:24] like there are. and you know they're
[2:48:26] being explored right now. Um hopefully
[2:48:28] you know this is a a learning
[2:48:30] opportunity and things are and it sounds
[2:48:32] like already things are put in place to improve. Um you know so but I think
[2:48:40] that the this program specifically does
[2:48:43] provide an actual benefit. Does my you
[2:48:46] know device at home my you know hey
[2:48:47] Google my Siri stuff does that give me
[2:48:49] any real protection? No. this seems to
[2:48:52] and I so and I feel like while there
[2:48:55] were a lot of voices that were you know
[2:48:57] are speaking up against privacy I think
[2:49:00] most of the people in Woodside that I
[2:49:02] know care most about safety and so while they're not here today and not
[2:49:06] talking about it I do think that that's
[2:49:09] a very high priority for people um and
[2:49:11] so I would want to uh you know consider
[2:49:14] that um
[2:49:19] so going through the the proposals. Um
[2:49:23] >> I don't
[2:49:24] >> you like me to call them out or
[2:49:25] >> I think I got them.
[2:49:27] >> Let me know if I if I miss any. But
[2:49:29] >> um the proposal to pause, I don't think
[2:49:32] I'm there yet. Um I don't think I'm I
[2:49:35] feel like the the benefits outweigh the costs currently. Um the reporting
[2:49:40] structure, yes, absolutely open to that
[2:49:43] one. Um an external audit. I I do like
[2:49:49] the idea. I don't know. I'd want to know
[2:49:51] the cost. Um because it sounds quite
[2:49:54] expensive. Um
[2:49:57] and you know updating the reporting
[2:50:00] structure
[2:50:01] or or not it's not the reporting
[2:50:03] structure but the amount of information
[2:50:05] we receive and the the you know is it is
[2:50:08] 40 random
[2:50:10] searches enough? I I would like more but
[2:50:15] at the same time I also don't like the
[2:50:17] thought of our law enforcement spending
[2:50:19] hours and hours doing
[2:50:22] kind of this this type of I mean just
[2:50:24] you know spending so much time on this
[2:50:26] specific thing and on a quarterly basis
[2:50:28] it feels like a like a heavy lift when I
[2:50:32] would prefer resources directed
[2:50:34] elsewhere you know and and I would I I
[2:50:37] don't know if there's a more efficient
[2:50:39] way to do this if there's another you
[2:50:40] know I'm not sure what it is maybe it is
[2:50:42] the the outside auditor um might be more
[2:50:45] efficient but
[2:50:48] um what okay
[2:50:49] >> the last one was explore alternative
[2:50:51] vendors
[2:50:52] >> alternative
[2:50:53] >> I'd be open to that because I don't know
[2:50:55] I I'm not sure I didn't know that flock
[2:50:57] had until today I didn't know that there
[2:50:58] were alternative vendors to be fully
[2:51:00] honest with you so I'm not opposed to
[2:51:02] that one
[2:51:02] >> okay thank you
[2:51:07] » yes mayor prom gold
[2:51:08] >> it's been an interesting night
[2:51:10] >> yeah been a I mean, it has. I appreciate
[2:51:13] everybody's patience. Um, I've got a
[2:51:15] whole bunch of stuff to say and I'll try
[2:51:16] to make it brief. I wanted to start with
[2:51:18] something and hopefully I'll end there
[2:51:19] because I tend to meander around here as
[2:51:21] I get lost in my thoughts. Um, what's
[2:51:24] before us tonight is to review and
[2:51:27] accept the quarterly and annual reports
[2:51:29] from the San Monteo County Sheriff's
[2:51:31] Office, not Flock, uh, regarding the use
[2:51:33] of ALPRs. So, that's what's before us. I find all of this really fascinating
[2:51:38] and interesting and meaningful and
[2:51:40] reasonable and people make great points.
[2:51:43] That's just not before us tonight.
[2:51:45] What's before us tonight is are we in
[2:51:47] compliance, actually the sheriff's
[2:51:49] office in compliance with the policy
[2:51:51] that we wrote?
[2:51:54] And um it's okay if we want to change
[2:51:57] it, but that's not where we are tonight.
[2:51:59] And and I actually don't mind changing
[2:52:01] it. In fact, if I remember correctly,
[2:52:03] unless I hallucinated this whole thing,
[2:52:04] which is entirely possible, I think
[2:52:07] about six months ago, I wrote a an email
[2:52:10] to the town manager and town attorney
[2:52:12] about a new idea for and it involved a
[2:52:15] lot of the things we're talking about
[2:52:15] tonight, a much deeper dive in uh more a better sample size, maybe not
[2:52:21] necessarily so deep, but there were
[2:52:23] other things there. I don't know. Maybe
[2:52:24] I'll I'd have to search my email to see
[2:52:26] if I did write it. But um the bottom
[2:52:29] line is I can get to the recommendation
[2:52:31] that um the town is asking us, are we in
[2:52:34] compliance? And I I think we are. I
[2:52:36] haven't seen any evidence that we're not
[2:52:37] yet. So I'm going to I'll I start there
[2:52:40] and I'm going to end there as well. Um
[2:52:42] there are very few people in this room
[2:52:44] who have been involved. I I'm fascinated
[2:52:47] with the number of attorneys from
[2:52:48] Redwood City and nearby cities and Assan
[2:52:51] for sure. And I I I I you know I suspect
[2:52:54] anybody who's gone to law school has
[2:52:55] been involved in these sorts of issues.
[2:52:57] The civil liberties and the you know
[2:52:59] personal privacy issue. I've been a
[2:53:01] member of the ACLU since 1969.
[2:53:05] Yeah. I'm that old. I joined when I was
[2:53:08] 18. I was in high school and pretty
[2:53:11] proud of it. I've I've always like been
[2:53:13] into that. And in fact, I'll tell you
[2:53:14] the one episode that gave me pause was
[2:53:16] the Nazi march in Skoi, Illinois. And I
[2:53:19] was really um as a Jew, it really
[2:53:22] impacted me greatly. And I thought, you
[2:53:23] know, this is why we're in it. This is
[2:53:26] exactly why I'm a member of the ACLU was
[2:53:28] to defend the essentially the rights of
[2:53:31] those protesters and in this case the
[2:53:33] rights of privacy. So it is a pretty big
[2:53:35] issue. I don't take a backseat to
[2:53:36] anybody on that. But it is a whole new
[2:53:38] world. And uh I flew to Mexico about a
[2:53:41] week or so ago. When I went to the
[2:53:43] airport, no passport, no nothing. Facial
[2:53:45] recognition,
[2:53:47] stepped right on.
[2:53:49] I I was pretty shocked to be honest with
[2:53:51] you. I didn't have to show anything. And
[2:53:53] I'm a not your real ID, not your
[2:53:55] passport, nothing. And I flew to Mexico
[2:53:58] and they just it was all facial
[2:53:59] recognition. Just go right on, wave me
[2:54:01] right in. By the way, same thing coming
[2:54:02] back into the country. Um which was
[2:54:05] pretty um
[2:54:07] intriguing to me. Um, I'm also
[2:54:10] fascinated by what something Assan has
[2:54:12] said. He and I have had this uh contest
[2:54:14] going on for a couple of years here.
[2:54:16] When we first discussed ALPRs,
[2:54:19] um, it was about 50/50 if I remember
[2:54:22] correctly. They were like half the
[2:54:23] people were, you know, crime at the time
[2:54:26] crime was a big deal. Residential
[2:54:28] burglaries, especially where I live, it
[2:54:29] was a big deal and people wanted
[2:54:31] something and um, for whatever reason,
[2:54:34] they seem to have gone down. I'm I don't
[2:54:35] attribute that solely to ALPRs. I think
[2:54:38] our sheriff's patrols have have done a
[2:54:40] lot of good as well. And maybe just
[2:54:42] nationwide crime is down. But that
[2:54:44] shifted and I think when we were here a
[2:54:46] couple of years ago, it was about 9010.
[2:54:48] I mean, people were like asking for more
[2:54:50] cameras. Can we have more? We want more.
[2:54:52] This is like they're they're so good.
[2:54:54] And I sense that it's shifting back the
[2:54:57] other way. So, it's making my friend
[2:54:59] Assan
[2:55:01] he's in he's in more company now. And I see that and I think that there
[2:55:05] have been abuses and that's fine. But of
[2:55:07] all the things that I've heard here, I
[2:55:08] haven't heard a single abuse from the
[2:55:09] sheriff's office. And I'm I'm more, you
[2:55:12] know, there's been a lot of talk about
[2:55:14] truthfulness. And your jobs are on the
[2:55:16] line if you lie. I know that. Um, and so
[2:55:19] it's a big deal. But I also question the
[2:55:22] truthfulness of Mountain View. How do I
[2:55:25] know they're telling the truth? I mean,
[2:55:26] they they've said something and we've
[2:55:27] heard conflicting evidence tonight. They
[2:55:30] say that Flock changed it. Well, I don't
[2:55:31] know if they changed it or not. Why why
[2:55:33] are we so willing to think that they're
[2:55:34] being truthful? But our sheriff's
[2:55:37] office, our deputies who we know and we have a long-standing relationship
[2:55:41] with them and there's not a single
[2:55:43] cintilla of evidence that they've done
[2:55:44] anything wrong or misled us that
[2:55:46] suddenly their word is in doubt. I don't
[2:55:48] view it that way. I I know um our
[2:55:51] deputies and the folks at the sheriff's
[2:55:53] department and at least I I we have no
[2:55:55] evidence that they are doing anything to
[2:55:57] um u mislead us. Um,
[2:56:02] the last thing I do want to say is
[2:56:04] there's there's a right now there's a
[2:56:07] major tragedy going on in Tucson,
[2:56:08] Arizona with Savannah Guthri's mother.
[2:56:12] And I, you know, we're all sort of glued
[2:56:14] to the TV. Well, maybe not everybody,
[2:56:16] but I've been glued to the TV watching
[2:56:17] this. It's a pretty a tragic case, of
[2:56:20] course, for the family and for this 84
[2:56:22] year old mom, I think. And, you know, I
[2:56:24] just can't even imagine uh what that
[2:56:26] family's going through and finding blood
[2:56:28] and those things. But the first thing
[2:56:29] they did was ALPR cameras in the area.
[2:56:33] And you could tell that the suspect that
[2:56:36] they they saw went after the ring
[2:56:39] cameras. You're on camera, you know,
[2:56:41] wherever you go. And he did things to
[2:56:43] disguise it and erase cameras, but they
[2:56:45] managed to sal salvage them. Cell phone
[2:56:48] towers. What's what, you know, as this
[2:56:51] as the suspect was moving through. It
[2:56:53] was like 1:00 in the morning. There's
[2:56:55] not a whole lot of activity on cell
[2:56:56] phone towers. And did they find
[2:56:58] anything? We're being tracked 24/7
[2:57:02] on this phone. I can tell you Apple and
[2:57:05] Google and, you know, anybody else who's out there, Verizon knows where I
[2:57:10] am at all times and uh they let me know
[2:57:14] that in no uncertain terms when they're
[2:57:16] suggesting me that I buy certain things
[2:57:19] when I get near a target. Um but anyway,
[2:57:22] um this is anything but business as
[2:57:24] usual. We take this seriously. I think
[2:57:26] that the comments we the I congratulate
[2:57:29] council member wall. It was a very it
[2:57:31] was a really thorough uh exercise of the
[2:57:34] um the seriousness that we take this and
[2:57:36] I think everybody is taking it seriously
[2:57:39] and um I can obviously get there with uh
[2:57:43] that we're in compliance. But I do think
[2:57:46] consistent with that email that I sent
[2:57:48] the 6 months or so ago, we need to
[2:57:50] revisit this and we need to take a look
[2:57:51] at it again. And I would, you know, I
[2:57:53] think everything, all the issues that
[2:57:55] council member Wall had discussed should
[2:57:58] be on the table. Um, I think before we
[2:58:00] suggest 1%, we should do a statistical
[2:58:03] power. That's a real thing. I mean, you
[2:58:05] don't just say, I want to do 1%. Um,
[2:58:09] there's a way to power your your surveys
[2:58:11] to make sure they're right. We don't
[2:58:12] sample 1% of the United States
[2:58:13] population to do a presidential poll
[2:58:15] when they're accurate within, you know,
[2:58:16] plus or minus 3%. Now, I know that
[2:58:19] that's an accuracy thing, not
[2:58:20] necessarily an audit, but you're no
[2:58:22] matter if you change vendors, you're
[2:58:24] still going to be dependent on the
[2:58:25] truthfulness of those two guys in those
[2:58:27] black uniforms back there. Always, no
[2:58:29] matter what, audits are always going to
[2:58:31] be dependent on the data that you go
[2:58:32] through there and whether people are
[2:58:34] misrepresenting and you can actually
[2:58:35] misrepresent an audit. Um, but anyway,
[2:58:38] so I can the biggest question is can I
[2:58:41] see my way clear on the audit? I can. I
[2:58:44] think that we have successfully checked
[2:58:46] those boxes. there's not any evidence to
[2:58:48] counter that. And I think that with
[2:58:50] regard to all of the points that were
[2:58:51] made before, um I think we should put it
[2:58:54] on the agenda and we should have a
[2:58:55] thorough discussion about a new policy
[2:58:57] if that's what we do and how to which
[2:59:00] would involve all the things that I
[2:59:01] think uh council member Aubberish has uh
[2:59:04] went through and his list there. I would
[2:59:06] go along with almost everything that he
[2:59:07] said in in the way he said it.
[2:59:10] >> So you you literally want to say yes to
[2:59:11] every
[2:59:12] >> what? Uh no, I would I agreed with
[2:59:14] >> Take this one by one with you. Take it
[2:59:15] one by one if you want, but I think I'd
[2:59:17] reflect
[2:59:17] >> sheriff's reporting directly to the
[2:59:19] council.
[2:59:19] >> Yes.
[2:59:21] >> Pausing the program.
[2:59:22] >> No.
[2:59:25] >> More robust audit services.
[2:59:28] >> Uh not an outside vendor, but but
[2:59:31] changing changing the audit. I think
[2:59:34] >> I'm going to say that's a yes.
[2:59:35] >> Yeah.
[2:59:35] >> Okay.
[2:59:36] >> Exploring alternative vendors
[2:59:39] >> should be on the table.
[2:59:42] He said
[2:59:43] >> transition to a third party auditor.
[2:59:46] >> Uh probably not because I think that's
[2:59:48] going to be an issue for uh the
[2:59:50] sheriff's office that is allowing a
[2:59:52] third party vendor to come in and access
[2:59:54] the data. I I find that somewhat
[2:59:56] dangerous.
[2:59:58] >> Okay.
[3:00:00] >> But it's on the table.
[3:00:01] >> Okay. Um Okay. And are you may I just
[3:00:06] add a few things? Are you complete?
[3:00:08] >> I'm done.
[3:00:09] >> Thank you.
[3:00:09] >> I have to be
[3:00:10] >> uh Uh yeah. So starting uh in regard to
[3:00:14] the contract and compliance with the
[3:00:15] contract, I didn't hear anything today
[3:00:17] that stops us from accepting the report.
[3:00:19] Uh it meets all of our written
[3:00:21] requirements and uh the answers that
[3:00:23] were given tonight were uh
[3:00:25] extraordinarily impressive. So I I want
[3:00:27] to tip my hat. I I really almost can't
[3:00:30] believe uh some of the some of the
[3:00:32] answers that happened tonight. Uh I will
[3:00:36] wholeheartedly admit there is a lot not
[3:00:37] to like right now. there is extreme
[3:00:40] reputational damage. Uh the the
[3:00:43] self-certification model, couldn't agree
[3:00:45] more. Um that's problematic. Uh software
[3:00:50] questions, balancing safety with
[3:00:52] privacy. Uh
[3:00:54] it would be very easy to fold our hand
[3:00:56] right now. It's the very it's the easy
[3:00:58] thing to do, frankly. Um but I'm not
[3:01:00] there. and um and I'm also not there uh
[3:01:04] in terms of the integrity of our
[3:01:06] sheriffs and um my belief in their
[3:01:09] procedures. Uh when you think about all
[3:01:12] these events going on around us, I took
[3:01:14] a little time to just go back and ask
[3:01:16] myself, why did we originally vote 50-0
[3:01:18] to do this? And and and why did we just
[3:01:21] vote 50-0 as a group just a few months
[3:01:23] ago to put another one in? Um the reason
[3:01:26] is it's a very very effective law
[3:01:28] enforcement tool and uh what we hear
[3:01:31] over and over again is it's essential to
[3:01:33] the work of our sheriffs. Uh we have a
[3:01:36] wonderful quarterly audit uh process. Uh
[3:01:39] it takes a long time to go through but
[3:01:41] it it is very robust and um we've had in
[3:01:46] writing directly on our questions uh
[3:01:50] comments from you know in writing from
[3:01:52] the sheriffs that they've done their
[3:01:54] audits. we've had public uh releases
[3:01:56] from the sheriff's department u that our
[3:02:00] data is not being misused. Uh I think
[3:02:02] some of these examples like the Mountain
[3:02:04] View example is a false equivalency and
[3:02:06] I'm I'm just can't get there. So I know
[3:02:10] one speaker
[3:02:12] uh had negative things to say about this
[3:02:14] bold comment, but when it relates to the
[3:02:16] roads, the license plates, they're
[3:02:18] public domain and we're using technology
[3:02:20] to capture them. And when you're on the
[3:02:22] road, you're in the public domain. So,
[3:02:24] uh, in regards to reporting relationship
[3:02:26] with the sheriffs, um, I want to see
[3:02:29] that change. So, I'm in that category.
[3:02:32] Do not want to see the pause. Um, I do
[3:02:36] not want to see, uh, an alternate
[3:02:39] vendor. I think that's going to be
[3:02:40] problematic because I don't think it's
[3:02:42] going to be very effective, frankly. I
[3:02:43] think some of the value comes from the
[3:02:45] network, even though there's so much
[3:02:46] criticism about beingworked.
[3:02:49] The one thing I really liked though um
[3:02:52] was the idea of spending some time
[3:02:54] searching for just what what is entailed
[3:02:58] in a third party auditor. Uh Jason, your
[3:03:02] answers were unbelievable. I've always
[3:03:04] been super impressed in the short time
[3:03:05] I've known you about how deep you can
[3:03:07] dive and have answers that I would have
[3:03:10] thought you were the expert in the in
[3:03:12] the entire field of license plate
[3:03:13] readers tonight. It was unbelievable. Uh
[3:03:16] I don't know how you can possibly keep
[3:03:17] that up.
[3:03:18] uh and having deep expertise would be
[3:03:22] very helpful to you. I don't know what
[3:03:23] it's going to cost. Um and that person
[3:03:25] might come forward and then say, "Hey,
[3:03:26] based on what we know, yeah, we should
[3:03:28] have slightly more robust uh audit or uh
[3:03:32] a bigger sample size or um or whatever
[3:03:36] those things are. I don't even know if
[3:03:37] that person truly exists. Honestly, I
[3:03:39] haven't heard of that position before um
[3:03:41] before tonight, but maybe we could look
[3:03:43] see if that position is around." So I am
[3:03:45] in that camp uh as a reasonable next
[3:03:48] step. Um and I've got frankly it's
[3:03:53] despite all of this uh a very very short
[3:03:55] leash
[3:03:57] uh
[3:03:59] on this whole thing. Uh it wouldn't take
[3:04:01] much more frankly to push me over. Um
[3:04:05] but at this point I'm holding ground. So
[3:04:09] uh I will say where we are and then ask
[3:04:12] for further deliberation. But where we
[3:04:13] are is we've got uh four votes for
[3:04:16] sheriff's directly reporting to council
[3:04:18] going forward and we have three votes on
[3:04:21] uh finding a third party auditor to uh
[3:04:24] searching and going through a process to
[3:04:26] see if that's viable or not. Every other
[3:04:29] proposal fails uh but we are still open
[3:04:32] for deliberation
[3:04:34] if there are any further thoughts or
[3:04:36] comments on any of it.
[3:04:40] Okay, seeing none, I think we're going
[3:04:42] to we need to call for a vote here
[3:04:43] because we have some future direction.
[3:04:45] So, uh, we'll call for a vote to accept
[3:04:48] the report with the direction to
[3:04:49] reinstate a direct reporting
[3:04:50] relationship to the sheriff's and
[3:04:52] >> sorry
[3:04:54] because I would like to different ways.
[3:04:58] >> Do you maybe vote on accepting the
[3:05:00] report and then
[3:05:01] >> each of the future directions?
[3:05:02] >> Yeah,
[3:05:03] >> understood. Uh, excellent suggestion.
[3:05:05] Thank you. Okay, we need a motion to
[3:05:07] accept the report.
[3:05:10] >> I'll I'll move to accept a resolution of
[3:05:13] the town council
[3:05:15] uh of the town of Woodside requesting
[3:05:18] the California Department of
[3:05:19] Transportation Trans Oh, sorry. I'm on
[3:05:22] the wrong
[3:05:25] >> old business there.
[3:05:26] >> Just quarterly and
[3:05:28] >> sorry. I uh move to accept a quarterly
[3:05:31] and annual report on automated license
[3:05:34] plate readers ALRPS.
[3:05:37] >> I'll second that.
[3:05:38] >> Council member Alberish.
[3:05:40] >> Yes.
[3:05:40] >> Council member Brown.
[3:05:41] >> Yes.
[3:05:41] >> Council member Gold.
[3:05:43] >> Council member Wall.
[3:05:45] >> Mayor Donowski.
[3:05:46] >> Yes. Uh in terms of future direction to
[3:05:49] reinstate direct a direct reporting
[3:05:51] relationship with the sheriff's to the
[3:05:52] council,
[3:05:54] we have a motion on that. You want?
[3:05:58] >> Yeah.
[3:05:59] >> We need to get I we Yes, I do.
[3:06:02] >> Okay.
[3:06:03] >> Second.
[3:06:04] >> Council member Alberish.
[3:06:06] >> Yes.
[3:06:06] >> Council member Brown.
[3:06:07] >> Yes.
[3:06:08] >> Council member Gold.
[3:06:09] >> Council member Wall. Mayor Donowski.
[3:06:12] >> Yes. and in the hunt to give guidance to
[3:06:16] staff to start a search for a
[3:06:18] third-party
[3:06:20] audit uh capability uh to be brought
[3:06:24] into this to help us uh continue to have
[3:06:27] good governance and oversight and
[3:06:29] supervision.
[3:06:31] I don't know if I botched that or not.
[3:06:32] Is that close enough? Okay. Need a
[3:06:35] motion on that.
[3:06:38] Thank you. Second. Any second.
[3:06:39] >> Thank you,
[3:06:40] >> Council Member Aubberish.
[3:06:42] >> Yes. Council member Brown.
[3:06:43] >> No.
[3:06:44] >> Council member Gold. Council member
[3:06:46] Wall. Mayor Donowski.
[3:06:49] >> Yes.
[3:06:51] Okay. Uh that concludes the topic. Uh a
[3:06:56] if you can believe it. I want to just
[3:06:58] thank our sheriffs for being here and um
[3:07:02] obviously the representative from Flax
[3:07:03] Safety and of course all of the comments
[3:07:05] from the public uh in terms of input
[3:07:07] this evening. Thank you.
[3:07:09] And we're going to take a three-minut
[3:07:11] break. Thank you.
[3:07:15] Bring the our council members back to
[3:07:18] the dis.
[3:07:29] Okay, moving on to new business. Item B,
[3:07:32] a resolution uh on up at four corners on
[3:07:36] speed limits. So, I'll hand it off to
[3:07:38] you, Jason, uh, to introduce the topic.
[3:07:42] >> Yeah, I'll introduce it and then I'll
[3:07:44] kick it over to the town engineer.
[3:07:46] Ultimately, this is one that I got
[3:07:47] involved in before the town engineer was
[3:07:50] on uh, staff. And so, I was contacted
[3:07:54] uh, by the ownership group of Alyses and
[3:07:58] some in um, engaged uh, members of the
[3:08:01] public that frequent Alyses and live in
[3:08:03] the surrounding area. And based off of
[3:08:06] the bicycle accident, the death that
[3:08:08] transpired there over the summertime,
[3:08:11] uh, we instigated a meeting with Calrans
[3:08:13] and Calrans has come forward with a
[3:08:15] proposal, a proposed project that would
[3:08:17] put two stop signs at that intersection,
[3:08:20] making it a four-way stop sign. And
[3:08:22] there's concern from the public
[3:08:24] currently that it's 40 miles per hour
[3:08:27] coming into that intersection and that
[3:08:30] they want to be very clear to CALR that
[3:08:32] they want to drop that speed because
[3:08:34] they are fearful of the safety of people
[3:08:36] approaching a four-way stop being
[3:08:38] unaware of it. And so we should have
[3:08:41] Andy, I believe, online this evening. Is
[3:08:44] he uh available online? And then uh
[3:08:48] Lewis, do you have anything to add on
[3:08:49] this particular one?
[3:08:51] Um just a little bit. Uh thank you town
[3:08:54] manager. So the town also received a
[3:08:56] petition signed by 543
[3:08:58] people asking the town council to adopt
[3:09:01] a resolution um to requesting CALR for
[3:09:04] this speed zone reduction. Um and it is
[3:09:08] also um you know establishment
[3:09:12] of this 25 miles per hour speed limit on
[3:09:15] this section of the state highway. Um,
[3:09:17] and it will definitely help improve
[3:09:19] safety for motorists, bicyclists, and
[3:09:22] pedestrians.
[3:09:25] >> Thank you. Any questions for staff?
[3:09:29] » Seeing none. Any comments from public?
[3:09:33] David
[3:09:39] » David Middleman. I live about a mile
[3:09:41] away from Alys's or less. Can't
[3:09:43] remember. Um, I remember when this
[3:09:46] incident happened. I remember coming in
[3:09:47] angry about it and talking to you guys
[3:09:50] about it. The speed limit is request I
[3:09:55] feel like I could speak for the the
[3:09:57] community is
[3:09:59] kind of the minimum we feel that we can
[3:10:02] get out of this. You know, the stop
[3:10:05] signs are ignored when people are racing
[3:10:08] on 35. Speed limits are suggestion on
[3:10:11] 35. And what really needs to be done is
[3:10:14] a traffic study and a redesign of that
[3:10:19] area, which Calran said they were going
[3:10:21] to do, but not in a way that was
[3:10:24] amicable to anybody listening. It
[3:10:26] involved getting rid of the island
[3:10:28] that's currently there, cutting down 25
[3:10:31] mature redwood trees, changing the
[3:10:34] entire character of that area of town.
[3:10:40] the solution that was self-generated by
[3:10:46] the community but ignored that I believe
[3:10:49] Steve Luben also studied was the idea of
[3:10:52] a roundabout and so I respectfully ask
[3:10:56] part of this resolution you also asked
[3:10:58] Calr Calrans to investigate a roundabout
[3:11:02] versus just stopping at a stop sign and
[3:11:04] lights. Thank you.
[3:11:09] If
[3:11:11] >> any other public comments on new
[3:11:14] business item E
[3:11:19] see none in the room and none in the
[3:11:20] Zoom, uh we will close public comment.
[3:11:23] Any deliberations from councel?
[3:11:27] » I think this makes all the sense in the
[3:11:29] world. I mean, that's it's a speedway up
[3:11:32] there, and we got to give the sheriff,
[3:11:36] Cal, everybody that tries to police up
[3:11:38] there some tools that they can use to
[3:11:40] try to slow everybody down.
[3:11:43] It's going to save lives.
[3:11:46] >> Yeah,
[3:11:47] that's over.
[3:11:49] >> Uh, so I live about a half a mile from
[3:11:51] this intersection and um and I would
[3:11:53] agree. I I don't know a single person
[3:11:55] who would not be in favor of this. Um,
[3:11:58] you know, it's a it's very dangerous
[3:11:59] anytime you have to cross over. Um,
[3:12:01] especially where where there's no stop
[3:12:04] signs and yet I know they're coming, but
[3:12:07] I don't know when. But, uh, but people
[3:12:09] will come flying down. You know, when
[3:12:10] the speed limit's 35, they'll go 50. I
[3:12:12] don't know what they do, but um, and
[3:12:14] obviously it's dangerous. And I assuming
[3:12:17] there's not going to be any opposition
[3:12:18] to this, so I'll keep this short, but
[3:12:20] um, yeah. So, I think full fullheartedly
[3:12:23] support this.
[3:12:24] >> Thank you. Any other comments?
[3:12:27] Yeah, I'll just add that we're in a
[3:12:29] position of advocacy here and this is
[3:12:31] our way to do our part and I think this
[3:12:34] speed limit reduction uh request makes a
[3:12:36] lot of sense. Uh
[3:12:40] and that's all I have to say. So, do we
[3:12:42] have a motion? Would you like to make a
[3:12:44] motion? It's your district, of course.
[3:12:45] >> Thank you. Yes.
[3:12:46] >> This time in order. Um, I'd like to uh
[3:12:50] make a motion to pass a resolution of
[3:12:52] the town council of the town of Woodside
[3:12:54] requesting the California Department of
[3:12:56] Transportation, CALR, to establish a 25
[3:12:59] mph speed limit 500 yards from the
[3:13:02] intersection of State Highway 84 and
[3:13:05] State Highway 35.
[3:13:09] » Council member Aubberish.
[3:13:10] >> Yes.
[3:13:10] >> Council member W. Sorry, Brown.
[3:13:12] >> Yes. Council member Gold. Yes. Council
[3:13:14] member Wall. Mayor Donkowski.
[3:13:17] >> Yes. Thank you. We'll close item B and
[3:13:21] move on to C. A request to establish a
[3:13:24] 15 mph speed limit within 500 ft of
[3:13:27] Woodside Elm.
[3:13:29] >> Yeah, this is the town manager and uh
[3:13:31] just to state that um I normally won't
[3:13:33] steal the thunder of the town engineer
[3:13:35] on these items moving forward, but I'm
[3:13:37] just connected to them because they
[3:13:39] transcend his uh start date with us. And
[3:13:41] so uh before I started the circulation
[3:13:45] committee had voted on this request and
[3:13:49] had talked about it after I began and
[3:13:51] ultimately a request came in from the
[3:13:53] chair who is here today to speak about
[3:13:55] this item. Uh the request has been made
[3:13:59] to drop the speed limit from its current
[3:14:02] 25 during school hours to the flashing
[3:14:05] 15 mph speed zone. This is something
[3:14:09] that is happening in the state of
[3:14:10] California, specifically in San Mateo
[3:14:14] and on the peninsula all around us. This
[3:14:16] is a a normal action that is currently
[3:14:19] being taken. And then ultimately, we've
[3:14:21] had interest from the school uh to see
[3:14:24] an action like this as well. And so
[3:14:27] without further ado, I think if the
[3:14:28] chair from the circulation committee had
[3:14:30] any more comment on this item.
[3:14:34] >> Uh yeah, thank you Jason. Yeah. So, um,
[3:14:37] so we look at speed trail trailer data
[3:14:39] and we've had trailers out there for a
[3:14:41] couple different times and I think the
[3:14:42] thing we've noticed is there's a lot of
[3:14:44] cars going above 25. Like a decent
[3:14:46] amount, right? Not all of them um but a
[3:14:49] decent amount go above 25 even during
[3:14:51] the window of you know 8 a.m. 9:00 a.m.
[3:14:53] 2 3 4 p.m. And the other thing we've uh
[3:14:56] observed is you know coming from this
[3:14:58] direction to the school you know there's
[3:15:00] the town center there's bucks there's
[3:15:02] enough kind of visual noise but coming
[3:15:03] the other way from the you know mountain
[3:15:05] side you don't actually know there's a
[3:15:07] school there unless you live here and
[3:15:08] you're aware of the location. Um and so
[3:15:11] it's really it's an awareness thing too.
[3:15:12] You see you know there's homes there's
[3:15:14] the tennis court wall and all of a
[3:15:15] sudden you're on the school. So, it's
[3:15:16] hard for people to be aware that, hey,
[3:15:18] there's something coming. Um, I've stood
[3:15:20] out there at various times with uh other
[3:15:22] parents and folks and people, some
[3:15:23] people speed there pretty quickly and
[3:15:24] it's just like this is a narrow area.
[3:15:26] Why are you doing this? Um, but really
[3:15:28] what it came down to was the speed
[3:15:30] trailer data was just excessive for in
[3:15:33] school zones. Um, it's a small area. I
[3:15:35] think the whole thing is 7 or 800 feet
[3:15:36] long. Um, I think the key distinction is
[3:15:39] it's during school hours or whatever the
[3:15:40] again the statutory language based on
[3:15:42] the California law for when it applies.
[3:15:44] So, it's not all the time. it's, you
[3:15:45] know, when kids are in school basically.
[3:15:46] Um, and I think really the goal isn't to
[3:15:49] make everyone go 15 or 14 miles an hour.
[3:15:51] It's to maybe get them down to 25 from
[3:15:52] the 3540 that they're doing, you know,
[3:15:54] when they really shouldn't be in that
[3:15:56] area. So, I think that that was the
[3:15:57] motivation for us. Um, I also personally
[3:15:59] don't think it needs to be 500 feet in
[3:16:01] each direction. I think maybe library to
[3:16:03] tennis court would be a reasonable area.
[3:16:06] Uh, because again, it's it's not a, you
[3:16:08] know, it's not it's not some it's not a
[3:16:09] drag net that's going to slow somebody
[3:16:10] down. It's it's a speed limit. And it
[3:16:12] also gives the sheriff's tools to, you
[3:16:14] know, enforce it because I think
[3:16:16] generally from what they've told us in
[3:16:17] the past, unless someone's 10 or 15
[3:16:18] over, they don't write citations, which
[3:16:19] is understandable. So here, somebody
[3:16:21] doing 30 is 15 over and they definitely
[3:16:24] deserve a citation again during school
[3:16:25] hours. So, um, the last thing I'll add,
[3:16:27] and I think Jason, you had this in your
[3:16:28] email, for some reason in the past few
[3:16:30] weeks, there's been a number of near
[3:16:32] misses right in front of the school.
[3:16:34] I've seen video. In fact, I saw one
[3:16:35] happening in front of me two days ago on
[3:16:37] Monday morning where somebody swerved
[3:16:39] into the church parking lot and almost
[3:16:40] took out two girls on bicycles that I
[3:16:41] see riding a school every single day and
[3:16:43] they had to swerve to a stop. So, I
[3:16:45] think that whole area needs to the
[3:16:46] sheriffs have been there. I think
[3:16:47] circulation is going to look at it from
[3:16:49] what other things we can do uh for that
[3:16:51] area. Obviously, it's Calran, so it's
[3:16:52] going to need suggestions, but I think
[3:16:54] this is a nice first step. The lights,
[3:16:56] the speed limit reduction, just again,
[3:16:58] you're in a school zone, slow down. Um
[3:17:02] yeah, I guess that's my thing. Any
[3:17:04] questions on maybe what we've
[3:17:05] deliberated or anything like that?
[3:17:06] >> Okay.
[3:17:07] >> Were there um I guess my question is,
[3:17:11] you know, sometimes when there's a
[3:17:12] behavioral issue, it's really can be
[3:17:15] handled by enforcement.
[3:17:17] >> Uh I don't know if that was talked about
[3:17:19] or or if it just was straight to the
[3:17:22] limit.
[3:17:23] >> Yeah, we've talked about it. I think the
[3:17:24] challenge lies in and you know this all
[3:17:26] too well. We talked about it extensively
[3:17:27] tonight. you know, there's two sheriffs
[3:17:29] usually on two deputies in town at, you
[3:17:31] know, any even time. They've been at the
[3:17:33] school, both both of them recently,
[3:17:34] which we appreciate.
[3:17:35] >> Um, I think it's just if they're not
[3:17:38] there, it's not going to happen. The
[3:17:40] other statistic that I will share is one
[3:17:42] statistic we've asked, I know Council
[3:17:43] Member Brown knows this, when we get uh
[3:17:46] our reports from the sheriffs on the
[3:17:48] citations each month, what percentage
[3:17:50] are addresses outside of Woodside? And
[3:17:52] it is almost exactly 75% every month. So
[3:17:56] that mean 75% are outside Woodside. So
[3:17:58] they're not Woodside residents, which
[3:18:00] means they're not part of our community.
[3:18:02] Maybe they don't know they are, they
[3:18:03] don't care, whatever it is. It's, you
[3:18:05] know, people who probably care less than
[3:18:07] everyone in this room and the people who
[3:18:08] live here. Uh, shame on the 25% to get
[3:18:10] them here, but that's different
[3:18:12] discussion. And so I think that tells me
[3:18:14] that it's an awareness thing. If that
[3:18:15] number was coming down over time or was
[3:18:16] changing, you know, the number of
[3:18:18] recitations stays sort of constant. That
[3:18:19] percentage stays constant. So we just
[3:18:21] need awareness. We need enforcement, but
[3:18:23] I think you need all of them. Um, and I
[3:18:26] think, you know, I know there's concerns
[3:18:27] about, you know, the speed going through
[3:18:28] there, how much it might slow things
[3:18:30] down. I think the traffic really is just
[3:18:31] some people pulling in and out of the
[3:18:32] school, which sometimes there's some
[3:18:33] silly things that happen to literally
[3:18:35] relock the whole thing. But I don't
[3:18:37] think slowing down that little section,
[3:18:40] you know, if you did the whole 500 ft,
[3:18:41] it might be a little bit too much, but
[3:18:43] that little section in front of the
[3:18:44] school, dropping it, again, if you if
[3:18:46] you're doing 20, the sheriff's not going
[3:18:47] to give you a citation. I could just
[3:18:48] tell you that right now. Um, if you're
[3:18:50] doing 30, then you probably will get
[3:18:52] one. So, I don't think it'll cause
[3:18:53] traffic. Obviously, I assume Calrans do
[3:18:55] a traffic study before they implement
[3:18:56] anything. But, um, we've looked at the
[3:18:58] options and the sheriffs haven't they
[3:19:00] haven't say, "Oh, yeah, we'll just take
[3:19:00] it everyone who goes 26." Like, that's
[3:19:03] not something they can commit to and we
[3:19:04] know realistically that's not possible.
[3:19:06] So,
[3:19:07] >> your your last comment interesting too.
[3:19:08] I was one of the things I was a little
[3:19:10] bit concerned about is traffic backup
[3:19:12] and maybe some unintended consequences
[3:19:14] at Kinata or all the way up to Pioneer.
[3:19:16] It's already as we know in the mornings
[3:19:18] it's the speed limit's already like 5
[3:19:20] miles an hour in the morning.
[3:19:22] >> Um
[3:19:24] the idea of any sort of uh doing like a
[3:19:27] trial period or where we can do an
[3:19:29] observable uh what what actually happens
[3:19:31] do people start sneaking around in the
[3:19:33] on Manuela and Olive Hill to sort of get
[3:19:36] around it or I mean I'm not sure what we don't know I guess uh when you do something
[3:19:41] >> you mean if there's backups. Yeah,
[3:19:42] backups and traffic patterns. And it's
[3:19:44] the idea of a traffic study, but an
[3:19:46] observable traffic study that we would
[3:19:48] actually be able to
[3:19:49] >> witness and and understand that
[3:19:51] >> make sure we're not solving a problem
[3:19:53] one place and creating it in another.
[3:19:55] >> Um, is that something that you think is
[3:19:56] viable or or you want us to just proceed
[3:19:59] full-on resolution to
[3:20:00] >> I mean, I'd ask the town engineer like,
[3:20:02] can you temporarily change a speed
[3:20:04] limit?
[3:20:04] >> We do a trial speed limit or no?
[3:20:06] >> Is that even possible?
[3:20:07] >> I don't even know. on a state highway.
[3:20:09] >> We would definitely need Calrans to
[3:20:11] weigh in on that.
[3:20:12] >> Yeah.
[3:20:13] >> Okay.
[3:20:13] >> I know. Well, there was one example. So,
[3:20:15] I think it was was it two years ago when
[3:20:17] they were doing the storm drain next to
[3:20:18] Bucks where they started like literally
[3:20:21] they would start at like 8 a.m. I don't
[3:20:23] think some of you weren't here for that,
[3:20:24] but they started at 8 a.m. They started
[3:20:26] like the week school started and they
[3:20:27] would close a lane if you wanted to see
[3:20:29] a disaster. I mean, I actually fell in
[3:20:31] behind you the other day, uh, mayor, on
[3:20:33] the way. I was was leaving the school. I
[3:20:34] was
[3:20:35] >> driving all right. Was
[3:20:36] >> fine. Okay. Okay.
[3:20:38] >> No, no problem.
[3:20:38] >> Oh, thank you.
[3:20:39] >> Um, there's too much traffic doing.
[3:20:40] >> Thanks for adding that to the public
[3:20:41] comment.
[3:20:42] >> You're wonderful.
[3:20:43] >> Um, but that was a disaster because it
[3:20:45] was literally blocking a lane right
[3:20:47] during drop off and Calrans refused to
[3:20:48] do it any other time. Then people were
[3:20:50] using Manuela Al the back roads.
[3:20:52] >> Um, but I think I used it as well
[3:20:55] because I live near there and I would
[3:20:57] drive the speed limit. I wouldn't speed.
[3:20:59] But unless the thing was completely
[3:21:01] stopped, that route is not faster. So, I
[3:21:03] think it's only if you are literally
[3:21:04] like staring at a, you know, excavator
[3:21:06] un getting unloaded in front of you for
[3:21:07] the next 10 minutes that it would make
[3:21:08] sense to go around. Um, otherwise kind
[3:21:11] of the stop sign traffic, at least in my
[3:21:13] personal opinion, driving through there
[3:21:14] every single morning,
[3:21:16] you know, like you said, the school
[3:21:17] traffic, the the pulling in and out is a
[3:21:18] problem. Not if it's 9:30 a.m. and
[3:21:21] you're just going through there 10 miles
[3:21:22] an hour slower, I don't think it'll be,
[3:21:24] you know, a massive thing. And then
[3:21:25] weekends, right? Weekends we see tourist
[3:21:26] traffic. It won't apply weekends because
[3:21:28] kids aren't at school.
[3:21:30] >> Yeah. You know, I I I I tried to drive
[3:21:33] 15 miles an hour, 500 feet on either
[3:21:35] side. It is
[3:21:36] >> it is painful. Uh that is a painfully
[3:21:39] slow drive. Um your idea of library to
[3:21:42] tennis court, uh literally property line
[3:21:45] to property line for the school. That's
[3:21:47] is that viable? Um or does it have to be
[3:21:49] by state law 500 feet off each side or
[3:21:52] something?
[3:21:52] >> I thought it was within
[3:21:54] >> I don't even know. Oh, I mean I just
[3:21:55] it's just it's a very long arc to go 15
[3:21:58] miles an hour and it's and if for
[3:21:59] anybody that's living out west of that
[3:22:01] area that is and it's a main artery. A
[3:22:03] lot of constituents
[3:22:04] >> Yep.
[3:22:05] >> use it for other reasons than school
[3:22:07] drop off.
[3:22:08] >> I think the school itself when I roughly
[3:22:09] measured it was like 7 or 800 feet. So
[3:22:12] 500 each side would be a huge percentage
[3:22:14] increase. Yeah. Which is why I said I've
[3:22:15] always I thought the rule was
[3:22:17] >> to within 500 feet.
[3:22:19] >> I don't think it's absolutely 500 feet.
[3:22:22] So I suspect we can advocate for what
[3:22:24] you know again what we think is
[3:22:26] appropriate for that area I think but
[3:22:28] I'm neither a lawyer nor a you know
[3:22:30] licensed engineer.
[3:22:31] >> Yeah. Town engineer is that your
[3:22:33] understanding as well is that uh we we
[3:22:36] ultimately can make that request and
[3:22:38] then we can find out from CALR or do you
[3:22:41] happen to know the answer to this
[3:22:42] question as far as the 500 ft? Um, I
[3:22:46] know ultimately we can consult with
[3:22:48] CALR, but I think it's within the uh
[3:22:50] local district's um authority. So, we
[3:22:54] will check with CALR on that.
[3:22:57] >> Okay. And one last one, I didn't mean to
[3:22:59] dominate, but um I don't know if that's
[3:23:02] possible tonight. I think uh um uh TCAP
[3:23:07] uh there's sort of a global approach
[3:23:09] that's happening here with circulation
[3:23:11] and um traffic calming and all sorts of
[3:23:13] things. Um this is I'm assuming part of
[3:23:16] the jurisdiction of what TCAP is
[3:23:18] considering and with some global master
[3:23:20] plan. I'm assuming it's coming at some
[3:23:22] point um or out of TCAP that would
[3:23:25] include this area in terms of I'm just
[3:23:27] thinking about oneoff dealing with
[3:23:29] something one-off versus dealing with
[3:23:30] something sort of globally.
[3:23:33] >> Yeah, that is the hope. I think from
[3:23:35] some video footage that we both I think
[3:23:37] have seen uh there's an issue and
[3:23:40] actually I ran into Christina who's also
[3:23:42] on circulation today and she was stating
[3:23:44] that she really felt like that bike lane
[3:23:47] was allowing the cars uh a location to
[3:23:50] drive into and so there was video that I
[3:23:53] saw recently you have children crossing
[3:23:56] at the crosswalk so naturally cars are
[3:23:58] stopped and some car took it upon
[3:24:01] themselves to cut around all of them and
[3:24:03] try to gun past everybody almost hitting
[3:24:05] the children that were crossing the
[3:24:07] crosswalk. And so trafficcoming measures
[3:24:10] that maybe stick a median or there's a
[3:24:12] trail there's a there's a path that's
[3:24:15] matching the other side of the p of the
[3:24:17] uh of the road would ultimately make it
[3:24:20] that impossible whereas 15 m hour will
[3:24:23] not have any effect on that level of uh
[3:24:27] concern that we currently have. So yes,
[3:24:29] I think that um that is our expectation
[3:24:31] is through the TECAP we're going to see
[3:24:33] all kinds of traffic calming measures
[3:24:36] that would um also lead to better
[3:24:39] mobility for the pedestrians and the
[3:24:42] community.
[3:24:44] >> Any other questions? I mean,
[3:24:46] >> yeah, I guess I guess Yeah, I I I would
[3:24:49] like to before we jump into something
[3:24:51] like this, I'd like to think that we've
[3:24:53] done a thorough study of I mean, you've talked about some other examples,
[3:24:59] but I'd like to see it perhaps in
[3:25:00] writing presented to the council
[3:25:02] >> as here's what we've looked at to slow
[3:25:05] traffic in and create a safer
[3:25:07] environment in front of the school and
[3:25:10] here's what's going on in other other
[3:25:11] communities. here's what the technology
[3:25:14] says you can and can't do and here's why
[3:25:16] we recommend this specific action um
[3:25:18] instead bank go 15 miles an hour
[3:25:22] >> I don't know if it's gonna fly if it if
[3:25:24] it works great but let's find out where
[3:25:26] it's working and why it's working what
[3:25:28] are they doing that maybe we can adopt
[3:25:30] ourselves but that's a big leap for me
[3:25:32] to go this duric on a state highway that
[3:25:35] >> so yeah
[3:25:36] >> used by 75% of the people from out of
[3:25:39] town
[3:25:39] >> so your question is could there
[3:25:43] um further work done basically on this.
[3:25:45] Do you think basically
[3:25:46] >> on this on this idea?
[3:25:47] >> Yeah, I like the idea, but I don't know
[3:25:50] if it's
[3:25:52] >> want to make sure
[3:25:53] >> feasible. Really do until I that's why
[3:25:55] I'd like to see some some kind of study
[3:25:56] by the circulation committee. Maybe
[3:25:58] along the lines of what was done on uh
[3:26:01] some of the work that was done east of
[3:26:03] uh 280.
[3:26:04] >> I don't mean to cut you off, but we
[3:26:05] can't we don't I just want to make sure
[3:26:06] we don't deliberate quite yet. I
[3:26:08] >> She going to cut me off. Okay.
[3:26:09] >> Yeah, I don't mean to cut you off. You
[3:26:11] know that. Um, any other questions
[3:26:13] before we go to public comment?
[3:26:16] Okay. Thank you.
[3:26:17] >> Thank you.
[3:26:18] >> Public comment. Uh, David, we got one in
[3:26:21] the room. Okay. And then we'll go to the
[3:26:23] Zoom.
[3:26:25] >> You posed a question. I wanted to offer
[3:26:27] some anecdotal evidence about how this
[3:26:29] would affect people that live west of
[3:26:30] town. One of the things I noticed when I
[3:26:33] moved to the mountain nine years ago was
[3:26:36] that when I was coming when I when I'm
[3:26:39] going north on 280 to the city or coming
[3:26:42] back that it's equate time to get off at
[3:26:46] uh Woodside Road or Sand Hill Road in
[3:26:50] terms of going home and that's probably
[3:26:52] because of the speed limits and what I
[3:26:54] can currently do. And so in terms of how
[3:26:57] to change traffic patterns, at least
[3:26:59] anecdotally, if you were to drop it down
[3:27:01] at the school for
[3:27:04] unknown how far, right, make that
[3:27:06] longer, you might shift that traffic to
[3:27:09] San Hill. So that's all I wanted to
[3:27:11] offer anecdotally.
[3:27:14] >> Thank you. U we'll go to the Zoom room.
[3:27:16] Christina Warren,
[3:27:24] » hello.
[3:27:25] >> Yes. Hi.
[3:27:26] >> Okay, just want to make sure you guys
[3:27:27] can hear me. Um, hi, I'm Christina
[3:27:30] Warren. I am on the circulation
[3:27:32] committee. Um, I also live west of um,
[3:27:37] the elementary school and I also have
[3:27:40] three children at the elementary school.
[3:27:43] Um, two things I wanted to point out.
[3:27:46] one in terms of how effective is this?
[3:27:48] Um the reason that this measure was
[3:27:52] brought into California law and passed
[3:27:55] is because of the um survival rate of
[3:27:59] children at 15 miles hour verse 25 miles
[3:28:02] hour. So there are lots of studies and
[3:28:05] lots of data um as to why so many towns
[3:28:09] across California have implemented this
[3:28:11] law. You can see it in Menllo Park,
[3:28:14] Athetherton, San Monteo, Redwood City,
[3:28:16] San Carlos, all up and down the
[3:28:18] peninsula. Um, and I think another thing
[3:28:20] that's really important to note is that
[3:28:23] we our elementary school is positioned
[3:28:26] in one of our busiest cutthrough streets
[3:28:29] in our entire town. And we have people
[3:28:32] from all different communities cutting
[3:28:35] through the town who are unaware of the
[3:28:38] fact that there is a school um
[3:28:40] approaching when they're driving through
[3:28:42] our town. Um living west of the school.
[3:28:45] Um I am about I'm like right across from
[3:28:48] Fox Hollow. So I'm halfway between the
[3:28:50] school and the little store. And there
[3:28:54] has been nothing done to address safe
[3:28:56] routes to school for children that live
[3:28:58] west of the elementary school. So in my
[3:29:00] mind, the absolute least and coste
[3:29:03] effective thing we can do is to reduce
[3:29:06] the speed limit for kids walking to
[3:29:09] school so that they can safely get to
[3:29:10] school because people are flying down
[3:29:12] the hill at 40 miles hour. Kids can't
[3:29:15] there's no crosswalk for kids to safely
[3:29:18] walk the streets. There's no safe
[3:29:19] sidewalk for kids to get to school.
[3:29:21] Everything's been addressed for kids
[3:29:23] east of the school from the Glenns to
[3:29:25] get to school. But we have tons of kids
[3:29:27] west of the school that are having to
[3:29:30] deal with high-speed cars passing them
[3:29:32] while they're trying to get to school
[3:29:34] that live less than 500 yards from the
[3:29:36] school. So um to me this is a no-brainer
[3:29:40] and um I would hope that the committee
[3:29:44] would put the safety of children first.
[3:29:47] Um, part of the reason that it's been
[3:29:48] brought to light, um, is because so many
[3:29:52] parents are now realizing that there's
[3:29:54] an outlet to voice um, all of the near
[3:29:58] accidents that occur every single day in
[3:30:00] front of our school. Um, I think I've
[3:30:02] been encouraging people to start sending
[3:30:04] in the videos and writing in to town
[3:30:07] council and things like that, but this isn't a new problem. We see these
[3:30:12] near misses every single day. And I just
[3:30:16] would like the council to think about
[3:30:17] this as a preventative measure instead
[3:30:20] of waiting for a child to be killed to
[3:30:22] do something about the safety in front
[3:30:24] of the school because it is a daily
[3:30:26] problem. And um I think there are lots
[3:30:29] of parents that can vouch for how
[3:30:33] problematic it is in front of our
[3:30:35] school.
[3:30:38] >> Okay. Thank you, Christina. Uh, moving
[3:30:40] on to Kim Hatson.
[3:30:46] » Hi, thank you. Um,
[3:30:50] so I'm also on the circulation
[3:30:51] committee, so I don't know if I'm
[3:30:52] speaking as a member of that committee
[3:30:54] or just as a as a citizen. Um, I would
[3:31:00] like to say that I am in favor of the 15
[3:31:02] mile um speed limit reduction. Uh I
[3:31:06] think that the if we um use Los Altos
[3:31:10] schools as a model that 15 mile per hour
[3:31:14] speed reduction is just the by the
[3:31:17] school boundary and um it's a small area
[3:31:22] but uh for me as a driver it's it's been
[3:31:25] effective. So I would recommend that. Um
[3:31:28] I I've really been impressed by the um
[3:31:31] advocacy of um parents and members of
[3:31:37] the community, but I feel like this
[3:31:38] school, Woodside Elementary School, has
[3:31:41] been really non-participant in this. And
[3:31:45] I would like for um I'm just kind of
[3:31:48] surprised, you know, we really haven't
[3:31:49] heard from schoolboard members or from
[3:31:52] the administration. and I feel like they
[3:31:54] need to be part of this that um they
[3:31:56] have to want it as badly as us. So
[3:31:59] that's my personal opinion. Um the other
[3:32:05] couple comments are unrelated is that
[3:32:08] this agenda has really been amazing but
[3:32:11] too packed for this town council
[3:32:14] meeting. Um, I think everybody's really
[3:32:16] tired and I think that y'all have had
[3:32:18] too many really important topics on one
[3:32:22] night's agenda. And the other item is
[3:32:24] that I cannot hear um everyone's
[3:32:27] microphone during the voting part of the
[3:32:31] after your deliberation. Thank you.
[3:32:34] >> Thank you, Kim. And thanks for the
[3:32:36] reminder to keep that microphone close.
[3:32:39] Um,
[3:32:41] any comments from the hall before we
[3:32:44] take the what looks like the last call
[3:32:46] here in Zoom? See none. Uh, Staca Gar.
[3:32:51] >> Yeah. Hi.
[3:32:52] >> Hi.
[3:32:53] >> I just wanted to um voice my support for
[3:32:57] lowering the speed limit as another
[3:32:59] parent in the school. Um, I've also
[3:33:02] witnessed many near misses. Um, both
[3:33:06] seeing cars go around on the bike lane
[3:33:09] side and then actually also cars coming
[3:33:11] in and passing on the left coming into
[3:33:15] uh where the first crosswalk is if
[3:33:17] you're coming from from Kenyatta
[3:33:19] Corners. Um, honestly, I don't know why,
[3:33:22] but recently it just has seemed to be a
[3:33:26] particularly significant problem and I
[3:33:29] would like us to do something like
[3:33:30] Christina said before somebody gets
[3:33:32] killed. Um, one thing I wanted to just
[3:33:35] mention is I agree with the point that
[3:33:38] particularly coming from the west into
[3:33:41] town into by, you know, by the tennis
[3:33:44] courts, it can be hard to see that there
[3:33:47] is a school there. So we don't, as I
[3:33:49] understand it, we don't have to actually
[3:33:51] extend the length equidistance. So like
[3:33:54] for instance, the amount of the 15 mph
[3:33:57] could be shorter on the Kinyatta Corner
[3:34:00] side than it is um toward the mountain
[3:34:02] side if we want to kind of give more
[3:34:05] warning on that side for people to slow
[3:34:07] down. Um I believe that that's one of
[3:34:09] the options. Um and then I think the
[3:34:11] other thing I just wanted to remind
[3:34:12] folks is that this is only during school
[3:34:14] hours. So when you know we back up on
[3:34:17] the weekends and those other times this
[3:34:19] won't be in effect. And so you know I
[3:34:23] think that some of the traffic uh impact
[3:34:26] concerns may not be as relevant as we
[3:34:28] feel like they are because you know if
[3:34:30] we're not there during the school hours
[3:34:33] um you may not may not realize kind of
[3:34:36] the impact. So anyway it's it's late and
[3:34:38] I'm not sure I'm making as much sense as
[3:34:39] I would have a couple hours ago. But
[3:34:41] thank you all for taking this and I
[3:34:44] really really would encourage you to
[3:34:47] look at lowering that speed limit as if
[3:34:49] nothing else to follow the the pattern
[3:34:51] that we see in the rest of California
[3:34:53] and also just to keep our kids safe.
[3:34:55] Thank you.
[3:34:57] >> Thank you. Any other public comment?
[3:35:01] Seeing none, we will close public
[3:35:03] comment. Deliberation from council. Any
[3:35:05] thoughts from councel?
[3:35:09] already heard mine.
[3:35:11] >> Well, I I can go. Would you like to go?
[3:35:16] Yes. Great. Great. Thank you.
[3:35:18] >> Um yeah, I I still as always I I think
[3:35:22] of safety as the number one issue. Um
[3:35:24] and especially when it comes to our most
[3:35:26] vulnerable community, which is little
[3:35:28] kids. um you know and I've seen every
[3:35:31] single day when I drive down uh Woodside
[3:35:34] Road and I have um at 25 I it's not
[3:35:39] every single time but most of the time
[3:35:40] there's somebody tailgating me because
[3:35:42] they want me to go faster and they're
[3:35:43] making it as clear as they can by riding
[3:35:45] my bumper and I don't know keep going
[3:35:48] the same speed. So um yeah I think I
[3:35:51] think people drive too fast. Uh I
[3:35:53] totally support it.
[3:35:56] >> Okay. Thank you,
[3:35:59] Ben. Council member Wall, would you like
[3:36:01] to weigh in?
[3:36:03] >> Um, yeah, I'm very supportive of this
[3:36:05] proposal. I think, um, it's like like
[3:36:08] many of the commentators, residents
[3:36:12] said, um, it's a child safety issue. Um
[3:36:15] I really appreciated um Christina
[3:36:18] Warren's comment around that there's a
[3:36:20] lot of data showing that the survival
[3:36:22] rates of children that you know god
[3:36:25] forbid somebody that an accident does
[3:36:27] happen um you know that to have it be at
[3:36:31] 15 miles an hour versus you know much u
[3:36:34] faster speed um the outcomes are very
[3:36:37] different and yeah I mean it's very
[3:36:40] convincing to me to to take a
[3:36:42] preventative measure like this rather
[3:36:45] than you know we're we're hearing a lot
[3:36:47] of anecdotal evidence and stories you
[3:36:50] know coming out that there's been a lot
[3:36:51] of near misses so I think it's uh you
[3:36:54] know important for us to take this
[3:36:55] preventative step um you know generally
[3:36:58] I'm very supportive of of you know safe
[3:37:01] routes to school initiatives and I I
[3:37:03] think it was a one of the people that
[3:37:05] commented made a really good point that
[3:37:07] really nothing has been done to address
[3:37:10] um kids that live west of Woodside
[3:37:12] Elementary School. So, I think this is a
[3:37:13] really important next step. Um, and I
[3:37:17] think, you know, we're seeing, you know,
[3:37:18] other towns around us make similar
[3:37:20] changes to their speed limits, uh, near
[3:37:22] the school. So, I don't know, I could
[3:37:24] keep going on repeating the good points,
[3:37:25] but uh, the point is I'm very supportive
[3:37:29] of this.
[3:37:31] >> Thank you. And, Vice uh, Mayor Prom
[3:37:34] Gold,
[3:37:36] >> this is good. Um
[3:37:39] I drove around a little bit uh area
[3:37:42] schools that are a mile or two away and
[3:37:44] um sort of surprised in front of Los
[3:37:47] Lamita the speed limit is 25. Um on
[3:37:50] Alamita Stellis Pulgus um front of Cord
[3:37:54] Madera the speed limit is 25. Um this is
[3:37:57] just I was just I've been thinking I
[3:37:59] mean this affects a lot of
[3:38:00] constituencies is on my mind. It's a
[3:38:03] main artery. Uh I don't disagree um uh
[3:38:06] with the comments that have been made.
[3:38:08] I'm uh
[3:38:13] I'm wondering uh as a compromise or what
[3:38:16] we heard tonight. There were two
[3:38:17] insights that grabbed me. One was that
[3:38:20] we might be able to just do this
[3:38:22] property line to property line. I would
[3:38:24] find that to be a far more reasonable
[3:38:26] compromise than what I think is in this
[3:38:29] document, which is 500 ft of either
[3:38:31] side. I think if you try to drive that I
[3:38:33] think it's almost punitive beyond
[3:38:37] reason. Um
[3:38:40] the other thing I did I did love and I
[3:38:42] just you know hearing that today the
[3:38:43] survival rate at 15 mph versus 25 might
[3:38:46] be enough to uh that that's a really
[3:38:49] interesting stat that I hadn't thought
[3:38:51] about. So, um I guess what I would ask
[3:38:54] is uh would we be open to just a uh
[3:38:58] modifying the resolution to be property
[3:39:00] line to property line? I think we kind
[3:39:01] of heard that from the chair of the
[3:39:02] circulation committee. I think it's
[3:39:04] reasonable. Um
[3:39:07] uh and if you haven't tried to to do
[3:39:09] what is being requested in this
[3:39:11] resolution, um I would ask you to try to
[3:39:14] do it. It's uh yeah, I get it. We all
[3:39:17] make sacrifices for the benefit of
[3:39:18] safety and I I understand that. But I
[3:39:20] just I guess I'm just wondering if
[3:39:21] there's a a way to modify this to
[3:39:25] into a reasonable um a reasonable space
[3:39:29] one side or the other.
[3:39:30] >> I like I like that proposal. I think one
[3:39:32] thing that we should talk about though
[3:39:35] is, you know, had the speed limit been
[3:39:38] 15 within 500 ft of school, I presume
[3:39:41] there would be a sign up, right? Kind of
[3:39:44] announcing that speed limit. And one of
[3:39:46] the things we heard from uh one of the
[3:39:48] people in in public comment was that
[3:39:50] often times, especially for very much
[3:39:53] especially for people that aren't
[3:39:55] familiar with Woodsides Roads, that are
[3:39:56] from out of town, simply don't know that
[3:39:59] a school is coming. And so what I would
[3:40:02] like to prevent is somebody speeding.
[3:40:04] And I think we heard from Assan like,
[3:40:06] you know, people aren't, you know, just
[3:40:08] doing 25, they're doing 35, 45. Um, so
[3:40:12] maybe in addition to your proposal, um,
[3:40:16] where the speed limit sign would have
[3:40:19] otherwise been put, maybe we can put a
[3:40:22] sign that indicates the school.
[3:40:24] >> Yeah. School zone ahead or whatever.
[3:40:26] Yeah. Okay.
[3:40:28] I'm thank you and I would support that
[3:40:33] uh continued modification.
[3:40:36] And of course the signs will say when
[3:40:37] children are present obviously in a big
[3:40:40] yellow thing over the Yeah.
[3:40:43] Okay. Are we Yeah. Can we get that
[3:40:46] motion?
[3:40:47] >> Sure. Um, I would move to approve a
[3:40:50] resolution of the town council of the
[3:40:52] town of Woodside requesting the
[3:40:54] California Department of Transportation,
[3:40:55] CALR, to establish a 15 mph speed zone
[3:41:00] within the property
[3:41:02] uh limit property line of Woodside
[3:41:05] Elementary
[3:41:07] >> uh on State Highway 84, Woodside Road
[3:41:10] and work with CALR District 4 on its
[3:41:13] implementation. Additionally, uh we
[3:41:15] would direct the town of Woodside, town
[3:41:18] manager or department of engineering,
[3:41:20] whoever needs to be directed, um to put
[3:41:24] up a a sign indicating that a school zone
[3:41:28] is approaching
[3:41:30] um within 500 ft of the school uh west
[3:41:35] of the school.
[3:41:38] >> Second school. Yeah.
[3:41:41] >> Council member Alvarish.
[3:41:42] >> Yes. Council member Brown.
[3:41:44] >> Yes.
[3:41:44] >> Council member Gold. Yes.
[3:41:45] >> Council member Wall. Mayor Donowski.
[3:41:49] >> Uh reports volunteer.
[3:41:52] >> No report.
[3:41:52] >> Thank you. Mayor in council
[3:41:54] communications.
[3:41:56] >> March 21 on your calendar is the
[3:41:59] senior's uh memory workshop and then
[3:42:02] followed by April 25 for the second
[3:42:05] stage of that. What's the date again?
[3:42:08] >> March 21 is the first one and then
[3:42:10] another one in April 25.
[3:42:13] Got them in. Thank you. Any other
[3:42:15] comments?
[3:42:17] Okay, then I think we're going to close
[3:42:19] it uh at a 10:48, a late one.