[0:04] the town council meeting of May 26, 2026

[0:07] to order.

[0:10] >> Jennifer, will you take role? Council

[0:11] >> member Alberish

[0:13] >> here.

[0:13] >> Council member Brown

[0:14] >> here.

[0:14] >> Council member Gold

[0:15] >> here.

[0:16] >> Council member Wall

[0:17] >> here.

[0:17] >> Mayor Donowski

[0:18] >> here.

[0:19] >> Council member Brown, will you lead us

[0:21] in the pledge of

[0:21] >> allegiance?

[0:29] United States of America.

[0:44] » Okay. Thank you, Dick. Appreciate it.

[0:47] Moving on to public comment. Uh we'll

[0:49] open that up. Persons wishing to address

[0:51] the council on any item not on the

[0:53] agenda are invited to do so now. Please

[0:55] note, however, that the council is not

[0:56] able to undertake extended discussions

[0:59] uh or to have much of a conversation

[1:01] whatsoever on those items, but we can

[1:02] refer them to staff for placement on a

[1:05] future agenda. This communication period

[1:07] is limited to five persons, three

[1:08] minutes each. Are there any any members

[1:11] of the public who would like to make a

[1:13] comment tonight on any item not on the

[1:15] agenda?

[1:17] We're going to jump right into the Zoom

[1:19] room and it looks like uh Tom, you're up

[1:22] first.

[1:27] You are unmuted.

[1:31] » Good evening, town council.

[1:34] >> Good evening.

[1:36] >> I respectfully request that the town

[1:38] council place on a future agenda a

[1:41] discussion regarding the possible

[1:43] substained ethics violations referenced

[1:46] in former town manager Jason Led

[1:48] Better's letter. Given the seriousness

[1:51] of the concerns raised, I believe the

[1:54] community deserves an open and

[1:56] transparent public discussion regarding

[1:59] the findings, the town's response, and

[2:02] what steps may be necessary to ensure

[2:05] accountability and restored public

[2:07] trust. This request is not intended to

[2:11] prejudice or judge any individual, but

[2:15] rather to encourage transparency,

[2:18] ethical governance, and public

[2:20] confidence in the integrity of our

[2:22] town's operation by the council. Thank

[2:25] you for your consideration of this

[2:27] request and for your continued service

[2:30] to the community. Thank you.

[2:32] >> Okay. Thank you, Tom. uh the council is

[2:35] determining what if any corrective

[2:37] action is warranted and um with respect

[2:40] to that one sustained finding and we

[2:41] certainly endeavor to address that issue

[2:43] as soon as schedules permit. So thank

[2:44] you for that. Uh we have Falia and Steve

[2:48] up next.

[2:51] >> Hello. This is this is Steve. Um

[2:54] following up on what Tom says, I think

[2:56] there's more than that that one council

[2:59] member involved. Uh the so-called

[3:02] independent investigations into

[3:04] allegations raised by Jason against

[3:07] council members did not address all the

[3:09] issues raised in Jason's letter. The

[3:12] district attorney investigator told me

[3:14] her office did not have evidence to

[3:16] criminally prosecate either either Jason

[3:19] or the council. But this doesn't mean

[3:22] that serious concerns don't remain in

[3:25] the public perception of the council's

[3:27] behavior. As several has requested

[3:30] before these investigations began, we

[3:32] need a truly independent investigation

[3:35] when public with public input into what

[3:38] issues are investigated. Please add

[3:41] consideration of such an investigation

[3:43] to your agenda. Thank you.

[3:48] >> Thanks, Steve. Um, just maybe to

[3:50] reiterate, the complaint was addressed

[3:52] through an independent and an impartial

[3:55] process. uh the claims were tendered to

[3:56] the insurance carrier who then

[3:58] designated independent counsel and of

[4:00] course even the investigator and that's

[4:02] what the law asked for and that's what

[4:04] uh was handled in exactly the way it was

[4:05] called for but we appreciate your

[4:07] comment. Any other comments from the

[4:09] room before we take another one from the

[4:10] Zoom? Okay. Uh we're going to you

[4:14] Walker.

[4:19] » Hi. Uh likewise uh given the previous

[4:22] town manager's whistleblower report,

[4:24] primarily the DA determining the

[4:25] behavior was not criminal extortion

[4:28] while being fired for it and the

[4:30] sustained allegations disclosing of

[4:33] confidential information in a closed

[4:34] session. I'd also like to make that

[4:36] request that the council adds an agenda

[4:38] item for the next town council meeting

[4:41] to give a public opportunity to engage

[4:43] the the council to speak um to town

[4:46] council ethics,

[4:48] a recommitment and a public overview of

[4:52] what constit constitutes a Brown Act

[4:55] violation and behavior of corruption. I

[4:57] only make this request to add the agenda

[4:59] item for the next town council meeting

[5:01] to restore public trust, not to bring

[5:03] more allegations. Thank you.

[5:07] >> Okay. Thank you. We've already covered

[5:09] that, but appreciate it. Uh any other

[5:12] comments?

[5:14] Well,

[5:16] okay. Seeing [clears throat] none, we

[5:17] will close public comment and move on to

[5:20] the next agenda item, which is a

[5:22] presentation from Sustainable Sonteo

[5:24] County. Welcome.

[5:26] >> Thank you so much. Let me share my

[5:28] screen

[5:30] and slides.

[5:41] Good evening, Mayor Dumbosski and

[5:43] council members. I'm Sarah Huard,

[5:45] executive director of sustainable

[5:47] Sanonteo County. Though SSMC's board

[5:50] chair, Terry Nagel, is unable to be

[5:52] present tonight, she sends her regards.

[5:55] She was a Berling game mayor for 12

[5:57] years and and council member for 12

[6:00] years and like me really appreciate the

[6:02] efforts that you've made to serve your

[6:05] community through council service. Um

[6:07] thank you for the opportunity also to

[6:09] introduce SSMC's programs and consider

[6:12] how we might partner in the future and

[6:14] collaborate to help Woodside address

[6:16] your town's needs and challenges.

[6:19] Um, SSMC is a nonprofit organization

[6:22] independent of the County of Sanonteo's

[6:25] government structure. Uh, for more than

[6:27] 30 years, we've worked toward a vision

[6:29] of a more sustainable future for

[6:31] everyone in Sonteo County. And we're not

[6:33] just focused on the environment. We look

[6:36] at sustainability through the three E

[6:38] lens, which includes the environment,

[6:40] the economy, and social equity, which

[6:42] all need to be in balance. We inform,

[6:45] inspire, and empower local governments

[6:47] and community members through datadriven

[6:50] research, community engagement, and

[6:52] policy impact.

[6:55] Now, I'd like to give a very brief

[6:56] summary of our programs and the free

[6:58] tools that you can use to support your

[7:00] town's goals. Um, we provide data on

[7:04] more than 100 metrics on our

[7:06] sustainability dashboard, enabling

[7:08] communities to identify both

[7:10] sustainability challenges and progress

[7:12] that they're making. Um tonight I'll

[7:14] point out a few of the dashboard metrics

[7:16] that are um relevant to Woodside's

[7:19] unique characteristics in the county. Um

[7:21] other programs include our ideas bank

[7:24] which offers case studies on proven

[7:26] solutions that address sustainability

[7:28] challenges

[7:30] and our annual indicators report which

[7:32] combines both metrics and solutions on a

[7:34] single focus subject and provides

[7:37] recommendations for local action.

[7:40] In October of 2025, we launched our

[7:43] report on the climate impact of food and

[7:46] our upcoming 2026 report will be on

[7:48] preserving and improving the urban tree

[7:50] canopy. Uh we also recognize

[7:53] achievements and inspire further action

[7:55] through our annual green building and

[7:57] sustainability awards which we host

[8:00] every spring. And finally, all of these

[8:02] programs are supported by meetings,

[8:04] webinars, roundt discussions,

[8:07] newsletters, and a host of other

[8:09] communications that foster community

[8:11] collaboration and impact.

[8:15] So, I've mentioned our dashboard, which

[8:18] is a centralized place for metrics that

[8:20] help councils and community members

[8:21] assess local needs, plan solutions,

[8:24] write grants, and track progress. It

[8:27] includes data across several categories

[8:30] such as climate action, housing,

[8:32] transportation, natural environment and

[8:34] demographics to name a few. Uh we

[8:37] regularly update the data to ensure that

[8:39] the information stays relevant. And as

[8:43] you can see here in the graphic, each

[8:44] city appears on the map and you can

[8:46] click on the city to select it and see

[8:48] that how the trend line on the right um

[8:51] is highlighted automatically. You can

[8:53] also click on multiple cities and

[8:55] compare their historical trends side by

[8:57] side and share and download the selected

[9:01] data as an image and a CSV file. Um, our

[9:05] reputable data sources are listed in

[9:08] that yellow box and include things like

[9:10] the US Census Bureau, California Energy

[9:12] Commission, PG&E and others.

[9:16] Um, I had provided a PDF of that lists

[9:18] all of the metrics available on the

[9:20] dashboard organized by topic. The

[9:23] metrics in bold are actually available

[9:24] at the census track level. And I know

[9:27] you have a very packed agenda, so I'm

[9:29] going to run through just a handful of

[9:30] metrics that might be of interest to

[9:32] Woodside and invite you to take a closer

[9:35] look later. Um, one is emissions from

[9:39] food consumption per capita, which has

[9:41] decreased substantially in the last 15

[9:44] or 20 years, but is also a little over

[9:47] the county average. Um, urban tree

[9:50] canopy, no surprise to you, you are

[9:52] among the very highest in the county.

[9:55] Uh, related to that, we also find that

[9:58] the risk of wildfire is much higher

[10:00] here. And there may be some things that

[10:02] we can do to help reduce that risk.

[10:05] Similarly, expected annual loss from

[10:07] wildfire is one of the data points that

[10:09] we have in the dashboard.

[10:12] Um, also interestingly, we have some

[10:15] data related to English speaking. Uh,

[10:18] those that speak English less than well,

[10:20] it's a very low number in Woodside.

[10:25] Your um, PAL Envirro screen score is

[10:27] also low, which is a positive thing. It

[10:29] means that you're at a lower risk for

[10:32] communities having environmental

[10:34] challenges.

[10:37] Uh we also indicate progress toward

[10:41] low-income housing goals and you are

[10:44] making progress for them but haven't yet

[10:46] met the arena goals.

[10:48] We include progress toward very

[10:50] lowincome housing goals as well.

[10:56] And soon we'll be incorporating a new

[10:58] dashboard feature which is a

[11:01] downloadable report for one city's

[11:04] metrics. Uh you might be able to see

[11:06] across the bottom of the screen there

[11:08] that we have tabs for demographics,

[11:11] housing, economic security, climate

[11:13] change mitigation and adaptation, tree

[11:16] canopy, and community vulnerability.

[11:19] So, the report was designed with the

[11:21] input of community groups to help assess

[11:24] progress and support communications and

[11:26] funding requests. And we hope that

[11:28] you'll be able to find it useful in your

[11:30] own work.

[11:33] I want to invite you to review these

[11:35] tools and resources. Uh, subscribe to

[11:37] our monthly sustainable cities

[11:40] newsletter, which is targeted toward

[11:41] council members and city staff.

[11:44] participate in and promote upcoming

[11:46] events and email me with any questions

[11:49] or uh successes that you would like to

[11:51] share. I thank you again for your time

[11:54] tonight and I look forward to our future

[11:56] collaboration. If you have time this

[11:58] evening, I'd be happy to respond to any

[12:00] questions that you have now.

[12:02] >> Wonderful. Thank you. Any questions from

[12:04] council

[12:07] or the public?

[12:11] Well, we'll just thank you for your

[12:12] presentation and all your efforts to

[12:14] bring the data and the dashboard and uh

[12:17] to communities like ours in terms of how

[12:19] we can do a better job on the

[12:20] environment and housing. I thought that

[12:22] was a great dashboard on housing, by the

[12:23] way. I don't I always wonder how we're

[12:25] doing versus everybody else in the

[12:26] county. So, we'll definitely check that

[12:29] out. So, thank you.

[12:31] >> I hope we work together in the future.

[12:33] >> Thank you so much. Thanks for coming

[12:34] down,

[12:34] >> Sarah.

[12:37] >> Okay, moving on to the consent. So, all

[12:39] items on the consent calendar are

[12:41] considered to be routine and will be

[12:42] approved by one roll call motion unless

[12:45] a request is made to remove an item. Is

[12:47] there any item that any member of the

[12:49] council would like to remove for further

[12:51] discussion?

[12:54] Is there any item the public would like

[12:56] to have removed?

[12:59] Okay, moving right along. Can we get a

[13:01] motion to approve all six items on the

[13:03] consent? So moved.

[13:06] >> Second. Okay. Council member Aberish,

[13:09] >> yes.

[13:09] >> Council member Brown,

[13:10] >> yes.

[13:10] >> Council member Gold,

[13:11] >> yes.

[13:12] >> Council member Wall,

[13:13] >> Mayor Donkowski,

[13:15] >> yes. Thank you.

[13:17] >> Okay, moving on to old business. So,

[13:20] tonight we open up with item A, which is

[13:23] a continuation of the public hearing on

[13:25] the appeal for the proposed project at

[13:27] 10 Still Creek Road. We do want to thank

[13:30] everybody for giving us the opportunity

[13:31] to um process all the public comment and

[13:34] review all the submitted documents. It

[13:36] makes a big difference. So, uh, as

[13:39] stated, we have closed public comment

[13:41] and we're going to be opening up, uh,

[13:43] with council deliberations. So, in terms

[13:47] of council deliberations, the way we're

[13:48] going to go about this is, uh, uh, we

[13:51] have to start with setbacks here. Uh,

[13:53] and we're going to just go and find out

[13:55] if there are any findings that council

[13:56] members cannot make. And then depending

[13:58] on how that plays out, we could focus on

[14:00] deliberations if necessary

[14:03] uh around any contested issues before

[14:05] moving on to the next entitlement. And

[14:07] ultimately we'll wish to get a motion to

[14:09] approve, deny, or to approve with

[14:11] conditions. So that's the process. So I

[14:14] think we'll just kick things off. This

[14:16] is on the setbacks. Um is there anyone

[14:19] that disagrees with the findings? And

[14:21] maybe Dick will just start with you and

[14:22] we'll move left to right tonight. Uh,

[14:25] are you able to make the findings on the

[14:26] setbacks as articulated in the staff

[14:28] report or are there items that you would

[14:30] like to discuss?

[14:32] >> No, I agree with the staff report.

[14:37] >> Okay,

[14:39] Council Member Wall.

[14:41] >> Yeah, thank you. So, you know, after

[14:44] reviewing all of the items that have

[14:46] been submitted and the testimony,

[14:48] um I I also um can make the findings as

[14:52] articulated in the staff report.

[14:55] >> Okay.

[14:57] Um Vice Mayor Gold.

[15:00] >> Yes. Um

[15:02] so, first I just wanted to say that

[15:06] there was just so much information

[15:07] provided to us. It was, you know, I'm

[15:09] glad we actually took the extra time to

[15:13] um to to go through it and u that was

[15:15] actually pretty helpful cuz there was

[15:17] [clears throat] an awful lot of

[15:18] information there. The setback for me

[15:20] was the kind of the key issue for me. I

[15:23] actually can make the findings based

[15:24] upon the staff report. I thought that it

[15:27] was pretty thorough. Um the other ones I

[15:29] think were a little closer call, but I

[15:31] think that the um on that first issue I

[15:34] can make the findings.

[15:35] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, Council Member

[15:38] Abberish.

[15:39] >> Hello. Yes. Hi. Uh,

[15:42] >> this, uh, this one's been really hard

[15:43] for me. Um, I've known

[15:48] David and Christine. We live on the same

[15:50] road. Um, I've also met a lot of you in

[15:53] the neighborhood. Uh, and I've spoken

[15:57] with a number of you. Um, so for me,

[16:00] this has been, yeah, it's been really a

[16:02] very challenging decision. Um, and

[16:06] you know, for for Kristen and David, I

[16:10] we live on the same road currently, and

[16:12] they're great neighbors. Um, they come

[16:14] out uh for road work days. Uh, they

[16:18] always help. They put up their house to

[16:21] help to to host the uh lunch after the

[16:24] road work days. Um, when some a neighbor

[16:28] sends out an email about a tree that's

[16:30] fallen on their driveway and they can't

[16:32] get out, uh, David and Christine showed

[16:35] up. Kristen showed up uh, with

[16:38] chainsaws,

[16:40] met them there. Um, they're always

[16:42] there. And so

[16:45] that's been my experience with them.

[16:47] I've had lunch with them. I've eaten at

[16:48] their house. Um, they were very

[16:51] supportive. uh um when I was campaigning

[16:56] all all the time and I I genuinely appreciate them as people. Um

[17:02] so when this came down and I started

[17:05] hearing that um it was basically

[17:09] uh

[17:11] the them on the one side and

[17:13] [clears throat] basically every the

[17:14] entire neighborhood on the other. I

[17:18] thought what what is happening? How how

[17:20] can this happen? you know, this is very

[17:22] different than my experience with them.

[17:24] Um, and so, you know, and I know for

[17:27] Kristen, it's uh a very personal issue.

[17:30] Um, I know her family's owned the

[17:32] property for a long time, and this is,

[17:35] you know, it's been a dream of hers for

[17:36] a very long time to develop this

[17:37] property and to have her family live

[17:41] there with her. Uh, and so

[17:45] I can appreciate that. And I think it's

[17:47] her right to be able to to build a home

[17:49] and to be happy in it on her property.

[17:52] Um

[17:55] uh with all that taken um when I went

[17:59] out to the property for the first time

[18:00] and I saw the um

[18:04] the flags and the poles and the lines um

[18:08] it made a little bit more sense to me on

[18:11] why there was so much conflict. Uh it is

[18:15] it's it's a large property and it's a

[18:17] large development and it's very close to

[18:19] the road and um and it's on both sides

[18:23] of the road and so I could start to see

[18:27] uh you know the the difference of

[18:29] opinion and I could see you know and I

[18:30] understand where she's coming from and I

[18:31] also understand where the neighborhood's

[18:33] coming from. Um, and I can tell you that

[18:36] my neighborhood on Grand View, we've had

[18:38] the same conflict that occurred with the

[18:41] Peterson property that some of you may

[18:44] have heard of. It's a uh

[18:47] um it was a small lot with on a steep

[18:50] slope and there was a lot of push back

[18:53] and from the neighborhood and he handled

[18:56] it all wrong. I would say he sued the

[18:58] entire neighborhood, pretty much all the

[19:00] properties. And so it started with

[19:02] litigation and the neighborhood sued him

[19:05] back and I wasn't part of that

[19:06] litigation, but most of my neighbors

[19:08] were and the neighborhood won. So he was

[19:11] not allowed to build property is still

[19:13] undeveloped.

[19:14] Um, and there's a lot of anger and

[19:17] frustration from my neighborhood with

[19:20] the town council for approving it and

[19:22] just with the whole situation. Um, and

[19:25] so here I tried as best as I could to

[19:29] take a step back to look at it from a

[19:32] neutral perspective. Um,

[19:35] and um, and before I get into that, I I

[19:39] would strongly encourage because it

[19:41] sounds like the council it doesn't

[19:43] really matter which way I vote. Um,

[19:45] there's already three

[19:48] uh, yeses it sounds like. So, but I I I

[19:51] would encourage everyone to please

[19:53] mediate. Try if you can to to find a

[19:57] solution because uh I'm a litigator.

[20:01] I've done it. I've done it for quite a

[20:03] while. It's always hard. It's always

[20:05] stressful on the parties and ultimately

[20:07] the only real winners are the lawyers.

[20:10] They make a bunch of money from the

[20:12] litigation. Uh, but it's exhausting

[20:17] and, you know, and I I would hate to see

[20:20] you, you know, either get this house

[20:22] built and then move in and still have

[20:24] all this conflict with neighbors. Um,

[20:28] and or, you know, you you spend a lot of

[20:30] money, go through litigation and end up

[20:32] like Mr. Peterson and have it all and

[20:34] have to start back at ground zero. Um

[20:37] and so I would encourage both sides to

[20:41] really seriously consider mediation, see

[20:43] if there's some kind of compromise you

[20:44] can work and um and if I can be of any

[20:49] assistance to anybody in that, I would I

[20:51] would very gladly do it. Um and so then

[20:55] so looking at I tried to just be very

[20:57] objective in looking at the the

[20:59] requirements the standards. Uh and so

[21:02] for me specifically for the setback

[21:04] exception

[21:06] um I felt that the first requirement I

[21:09] could not personally find it um that

[21:12] there was no alternative and

[21:13] specifically because of the detached ADU

[21:16] on the other side of the road which I

[21:18] didn't think it's not really part of the

[21:20] home dwelling that what I understand you

[21:22] know the the main unit and then the

[21:25] family um your parents you [snorts] know

[21:28] unit and that would just be kind of an

[21:30] extra Uh, and I I think it might go a

[21:32] long way to, you know, compromise with

[21:36] that piece with the with the neighbors.

[21:38] I I don't know. Um, so maybe something

[21:41] worth exploring. But for me, I couldn't find for number one. And then

[21:46] requirement number five under that same

[21:49] uh section.

[21:51] For me, I read that as being

[21:54] specifically a place to protect the

[21:56] interests of neighborhoods and

[21:58] neighbors. And it feels like that the

[22:00] showing that we have here and that we

[22:02] had two weeks ago um tells me that there is a lot of uh push back and

[22:08] frustration from the neighbors. So I

[22:11] think that's specifically what it was

[22:13] created for. Um

[22:16] and again I would just I would encourage

[22:18] everybody to seriously think about

[22:20] mediation scheduling a mediator. I'd be

[22:23] happy to help you find one. And if

[22:24] there's any if there's openness, I I'd

[22:27] be happy to help you work uh together,

[22:30] you know, any any way I can. So,

[22:34] that's that's where I'm at. Okay.

[22:36] >> Thank you. Um and I too can uh make the

[22:41] findings that are uh articulated in the

[22:43] staff report. And um you know, for me

[22:46] it's uh you know, why do you have

[22:48] exceptions and variances? It's in

[22:50] addition to privacy and conformity, it's

[22:52] uh provides some flexibility when you

[22:54] have a difficult to uh build situation

[22:57] and the strict rules don't apply. And um

[23:00] I do think that you know 1B is is well

[23:03] said um in terms of the natural

[23:05] topography and contours of the land but

[23:07] also the constraints and the distance to

[23:10] other properties and the original home

[23:12] site uh in the plot map and the

[23:14] limitations on 50% slopes and the

[23:16] significant grading costs and so forth

[23:18] and even the the setback itself is just

[23:21] I look at it as an incremental

[23:22] encroachment a little bit you know uh

[23:24] maybe 15 or 20% of the property line not

[23:26] the entire line. So uh I can fine for uh

[23:30] the setbacks. So that's where I am on

[23:32] that. So from a straw pool point of

[23:34] view, we have a pretty good sense on

[23:36] setbacks. Um

[23:39] why don't we move on for a second and uh

[23:42] we have maximum residence size and um

[23:44] formal design. Formal design. Can folks

[23:47] make for the formal design? Um if you

[23:50] can't make setbacks, you can't make

[23:51] formal design obviously, but um

[23:54] where are we on formal design? Anyone?

[23:57] You want to start left or right again?

[23:59] Okay.

[24:00] >> Start same place I was on the first is

[24:02] that I I agree with the um staff report.

[24:05] I didn't see any any issue with the

[24:07] formal design.

[24:09] >> Okay. Thank you.

[24:12] >> I can als

[24:17] I assume

[24:19] no to put where's my Yeah, it's kind of

[24:22] by default. Got it. And I can as well.

[24:24] And then maximum resonance size. Uh,

[24:28] we'll just do the same thing. Council

[24:30] member Brown.

[24:32] >> Same. I agree with staff.

[24:36] >> Same.

[24:37] >> Gold.

[24:37] >> This one was a closer one for me. I can,

[24:39] but it's um was definitely the closest

[24:42] call for me.

[24:46] » Did you want to discuss that at all or

[24:47] No.

[24:48] >> Okay.

[24:50] if I would actually be fine with the the

[24:52] size if uh if it wasn't for the specific

[24:56] location.

[24:57] >> Okay. And

[25:00] likewise uh so I think what we're

[25:03] hearing is we are in a place to make a

[25:05] motion um and we have to make a motion I

[25:09] think pretty tightly uh tied to the

[25:11] resolution. Um is there somebody that

[25:14] would like to make that motion?

[25:22] She does.

[25:26] » Um before we make the motion, can we

[25:29] deliberation? Sorry. Yeah. I think

[25:31] sorry.

[25:31] >> Yeah. I just wanted to reflect on this

[25:33] process here a little bit because

[25:35] >> um you know echoing a lot of what Hassan

[25:38] said like this I can just tell there's

[25:40] so much emotion here. Um we rarely have

[25:43] council meetings where so many residents

[25:45] show up. they participate in the process

[25:47] and so thank you for doing that. Um it

[25:51] really means a lot. It really helped us

[25:53] come to our conclusion. Um there was a

[25:55] lot of information provided that was all

[25:57] very useful. Um this was a really tough

[26:00] call and um I would double down on

[26:05] Hassan's comments um around trying to

[26:07] find a resolution that's m that's not

[26:10] just necessarily latigious. Um it would

[26:14] you know I think success here you know

[26:16] would look like um a neighborhood that's

[26:18] that finds its way to to resolve this

[26:21] and for people to come together and um

[26:24] so I I hope I hope something like that

[26:26] can happen. Um but just wanted to say

[26:30] you know I I could just tell there there

[26:32] is a lot of emotion and a lot of um you

[26:36] know a lot of stakes involved here and

[26:39] we I just wanted to recognize that. So

[26:41] thank you

[26:45] Well said.

[26:46] >> And I don't mean anybody else want to

[26:47] say anything

[26:48] >> other further deliberations, comments.

[26:53] >> Okay.

[26:53] Um with that, I will do my best to

[26:56] make a motion. So, um, I move to approve

[26:59] a resolution of the Woodside Town

[27:01] Council on appeal approving ASRB

[27:04] 202250017

[27:07] formal design review of project XMAX

[27:10] 20225-0010,

[27:13] a maximum residence size exception and

[27:16] XC2025-001,

[27:20] a setback exception to construct a new

[27:23] main residence with an attached garage

[27:25] junior accessory dwelling unit and one

[27:28] attached accessory dwelling unit, one

[27:30] detached ADU and associated site

[27:33] improvements on a vacant lot located at

[27:36] 10 Still Creek Road.

[27:40] >> Second.

[27:41] >> Council member Alberish,

[27:43] >> no.

[27:43] >> Council member Brown,

[27:44] >> yes.

[27:45] >> Council member Gold,

[27:46] >> yes.

[27:46] >> Council member Wall,

[27:47] >> yes.

[27:48] >> Mayor Donowski,

[27:49] >> yes.

[27:53] » Thank you all.

[27:56] Um,

[27:58] okay.

[28:03] Moving on. Um, new business item B,

[28:06] license plate readers. Melissa.

[28:08] >> Thank you, Mayor Donowski. Before the

[28:10] council this evening is the quarterly

[28:12] report from the Sanonteo County

[28:13] Sheriff's Office regarding the use of

[28:15] automated license plate readers, ALPRS

[28:18] for January 2026 to March 2026. Per the

[28:22] ALPR usage and privacy policy on a

[28:25] quarterly basis. The town manager is to

[28:27] make a report to the town council which

[28:29] includes a data audit from the sheriff.

[28:31] randomly selects at least 10

[28:33] detection browsing inquiries to

[28:35] determine if each inquiry meets the

[28:37] requirements of the town's ALPR policy.

[28:40] I have reviewed the quarterly report

[28:42] from the sheriff's office and determined

[28:43] based on the information provided by the

[28:45] sheriff's office in the quarterly report

[28:47] that the use of the ALPRs in Woodside is

[28:50] compliant with the town's ALPR policy.

[28:53] Attachment three to the staff report

[28:55] contains the town manager audit.

[28:57] Sergeant Nick Borano is in attendance

[28:59] this evening via Zoom to answer any

[29:01] questions the council may have about the

[29:02] quarterly report. At the February 10th,

[29:06] 2026 Town Council meeting when the last

[29:08] quarterly and annual reports were

[29:09] reviewed, the town council directed

[29:11] staff to explore potential vendors to

[29:13] conduct annual audits of the use of the

[29:15] flock safety ALPR system installed in

[29:18] Woodside. Staff is seeking a direction

[29:20] from council on whether to prepare for

[29:23] council review and approval a request

[29:24] for proposals RFP for ALPR auditing

[29:28] services of the flock safety ALPR

[29:30] system. The RFP scope of work could

[29:32] include an audit of the reason for

[29:34] search log external sharing audits and

[29:36] data deletion verification. If the

[29:39] council wishes to issue an RFP, a draft

[29:41] would be brought back to the council

[29:43] before issuance. That concludes my

[29:45] report and I would be happy to answer

[29:46] any questions. Thank you. Thank you.

[29:49] Questions for Melissa or uh Sergeant

[29:52] Nick?

[29:53] >> Uh yes. Uh have there been any any

[29:56] reports of misuse of the data by anybody

[30:01] in Woodside?

[30:03] >> There have not. To my understanding, I'm

[30:04] trying to make Sergeant Brano a

[30:06] panelist, but it's not led me. Jen,

[30:09] could you

[30:20] So what you're saying is that we have no

[30:21] evidence of any any problems.

[30:23] >> That's correct. From my review of the

[30:26] sheriff's report, I do not see a misuse

[30:28] and Sergeant Barono can confirm.

[30:30] >> Okay. Thank you.

[30:32] >> Hi.

[30:33] >> Good evening everyone. Uh, no, there has

[30:35] not been um any signs of any mis misuse

[30:38] with the the software.

[30:44] [clears throat]

[30:45] >> Any other questions?

[30:48] >> Um, so Melissa, you and I talked a

[30:51] little bit before the meeting um about

[30:53] um what an RFP could look like and um

[30:57] we've been emailing back and forth about

[30:59] some potential uh vendors and I know you

[31:02] did some outreach. Sounds like um Palo

[31:05] Alto could maybe could you just share

[31:06] what you learned about Palo Alto?

[31:07] >> Sure. PaloAlto uh explored the third

[31:10] party audit and they reached out to

[31:13] Baker Tilly. Uh PaloAlto uses Baker

[31:15] Tilly for their independent they're

[31:16] their independent auditors and when they

[31:18] asked Baker Tilly if they would be able

[31:20] to perform a third party audit of the

[31:22] Flock system, a conflict was discovered

[31:25] because Flock Safety is also a client of

[31:28] Baker Tilly. And so I reached out to

[31:31] PaloAlto to find out some more

[31:32] information if they will be putting out

[31:34] an RFP. I did not receive a call back.

[31:36] Um I did some additional looking on

[31:39] their website. I did not find an RFP has

[31:41] been drafted. Uh they had a policy

[31:43] subcommittee in meeting in March and I

[31:46] had didn't see any update since then

[31:48] since that conflict was was raised.

[31:54] » Mhm.

[31:56] >> Can I ask a question?

[31:57] >> No. No. Just a second. As soon as we're

[31:59] done, we're about to close. Any other

[32:01] questions from council?

[32:04] >> Well, now you can, sir. Welcome. Please

[32:07] come on up. Public comment is now open

[32:08] on license plate raers.

[32:10] >> AJ Costa, 13 Sunrise Drive, but what's

[32:12] the benefit of of the license plate

[32:13] readers? Is there a specific reason they

[32:16] put them up? I'm not against them, but

[32:18] I'm just kind of curious. What kind of

[32:20] data do they collect? And what are they

[32:23] really for? Can anybody explain that to

[32:26] me? Sure.

[32:28] So, uh, in 20 in 2023, the town council

[32:32] approved an agreement with Flock Safety

[32:34] to install 20 cameras throughout various

[32:37] locations in town. Uh it captures data

[32:40] for the license plate uh make a model of

[32:42] the car color and the sheriff's uh the

[32:45] sheriff's department uh manages program

[32:49] on behalf of the town the town's data

[32:51] through the flock system and the

[32:53] sheriff's office of Sanonteo County can

[32:56] use the system to search for very

[32:59] specific terms in the town's ALPR usage

[33:03] policy. And me one second. I'll pull up

[33:06] to this. I had it here earlier.

[33:10] Um,

[33:13] so they s they allowed to search for

[33:15] very specific uses to assist in

[33:18] identifying and investigating crimes

[33:20] against persons and property to locate

[33:22] missing children, adults, andor elderly

[33:24] individuals, including in response to

[33:27] Amber alerts and silver silver alerts.

[33:30] To locate stolen, wanted, and/or other

[33:32] vehicles that are the subject of an

[33:34] investigation. To assist in gathering

[33:36] evidence to identify, apprehend, and

[33:38] prosecute criminal offenders. To respond

[33:41] to emergency events. To locate and/or

[33:44] apprehend individuals subject to arrest

[33:46] warrants. To locate victims, witnesses,

[33:49] and suspects associated with an

[33:51] investigation.

[33:52] Or to check either manually or automated

[33:55] for license plate data appearing on

[33:57] active hot lists.

[34:00] Okay,

[34:02] >> that's all I want to know. Thank you.

[34:04] >> Thank you.

[34:05] >> Curious.

[34:06] >> All right. Thank you.

[34:07] >> Appreciate it. Thank you. Moving on to

[34:09] the Zoom room. Um, Mr. Wells,

[34:15] » it just disappeared, took his hand down,

[34:17] it looks like.

[34:18] >> Can you hear me?

[34:19] >> Okay. Yeah, we got you. Um,

[34:22] one one interesting use case of data and

[34:25] could maybe be under the umbrella of

[34:27] audit or use of

[34:30] uh the flock safety system is the one

[34:32] thing we're not utilizing that flex

[34:33] safety does offer is traffic analytics.

[34:37] So that gives you vehicle class types.

[34:39] It gives you speed information between

[34:42] two points, you know, between two

[34:44] cameras. It gives you

[34:48] analytics on when the traffic is

[34:50] occurring. Obviously, we have a lot of

[34:53] we have a distinct weakened problem and

[34:55] rather than just kind of using, you

[34:57] know, anecdotes, you can actually have a

[35:00] datadriven

[35:02] enforcement regime and have a lot of

[35:05] insights that we currently are not

[35:07] using. I'm not sure exactly how it's

[35:09] priced, but it is another use of flock

[35:11] safety that could be very beneficial to

[35:13] the town.

[35:17] That's all.

[35:18] >> Thank you. Uh, Sergeant, uh, do you have

[35:22] any thoughts on the expansionary pack

[35:25] that was just mentioned?

[35:28] >> Yeah, it is the date of you're

[35:30] collecting it either way. Um,

[35:33] so it is a, you know, I do know we do

[35:36] have a weekend issue. Um,

[35:38] Woodside's unique as far as the flow

[35:40] that comes in. There's only a couple

[35:43] ways into town. So, um, that's obviously

[35:46] completely up to the town and how you

[35:49] guys would want to utilize it. It

[35:50] wouldn't be

[35:52] beneficial outside of a I guess traffic

[35:54] enforcement data collection point for

[35:56] the sheriff's office. Um, you know, on

[36:00] when to staff it, but again,

[36:02] um, you guys, we're already staffing the

[36:05] town according to the contract with the

[36:07] sheriff's office right now. So, I don't

[36:08] know how much more that would change. Um

[36:11] we do have some success stories um with

[36:14] Flock um this quarter actually as of

[36:17] recently is uh three days ago um that I

[36:20] did want to highlight. Um as you all

[36:22] know in February and March of 2026

[36:24] there's some copper thefts. Um that case

[36:28] was solved and arrest was made um solely

[36:30] due to flock. Um and then on earlier

[36:36] this month on the 13th of May, um there

[36:38] was a stolen vehicle reported in town

[36:40] and just to kind of capture how well

[36:42] Flock worked in the situation. The

[36:44] vehicle was reported stolen at 1:50 p.m.

[36:48] It was recovered um by 2:30 and we had

[36:52] two people arrested by 3:30 in uh in the

[36:56] city of Redwood City associated with

[36:58] that stolen vehicle. Um, as of the 23rd,

[37:02] there was a reporting of uh someone

[37:04] shooting in the area um off of Trip

[37:07] Road. Um, utilizing ALPR data and in the

[37:11] flock data, um, several investigative

[37:13] leads, including uh um possible suspects

[37:16] have been um our investigators have been able to

[37:21] use that data for that information.

[37:26] » Good to hear. Thank you. Uh, moving on

[37:29] to um Isa.

[37:33] Sorry.

[37:35] >> Hi, Mayor. Can you guys hear me? Hi.

[37:37] Yeah, we can.

[37:38] >> Thank you. Sorry for not being there in

[37:39] person. Um, I apologize. My wife is

[37:41] feeling ill, so I'm watching my boys.

[37:42] Um, you guys know my position on this. I

[37:44] will continue to show up every single

[37:45] time or call in like today. Um, I think

[37:49] I' I've come around to the opinion that

[37:50] Flock itself is a singularly awful

[37:52] company. They are absolutely

[37:55] untrustworthy. the more information and

[37:57] news that comes out about them, the more

[37:58] that that conclusion is reinforced. I

[38:01] think doing business with them is

[38:02] dreadful. Um, I read a snippet of David

[38:04] Middleman's letter. I haven't had a

[38:05] chance to read the whole thing, but I

[38:06] think I'm on the same page. And I wanted

[38:08] to just address one other thing that

[38:09] some of the town council members have

[38:11] mentioned in some of the previous

[38:12] meetings, and it's a reference to how,

[38:14] you know, our phones already track us,

[38:16] so it doesn't matter that flock tracks

[38:18] us. Well, there's a fundamental

[38:20] difference there, which is a phone is

[38:22] the device you choose to go purchase and

[38:24] then you choose how to interact with it

[38:26] and you select the companies and vendors

[38:28] that you install in terms of apps, you

[38:30] know, uses, etc. You can turn your phone

[38:32] off, uninstall all the apps, and they

[38:35] can't follow you, right? That's your

[38:36] choice. With the flot cameras, we don't

[38:38] have that choice. And as much as I'm

[38:40] certain there are success stories,

[38:42] there's all sorts of things that the

[38:43] government could choose to do that would

[38:45] quote make us safer, but come at the

[38:47] cost of liberty of everybody. So again,

[38:49] as always, I implore you to terminate

[38:50] the contract with Flock. They are

[38:52] dreadful. I actually watched a hour and

[38:54] a half podcast I guess that he did with

[38:57] the founder of Stripe, Patrick Collison,

[39:00] and the founder is a psycho. He has a

[39:04] vision of a crime-free city that is just

[39:06] some dystopian nightmare. Um, I will try

[39:09] to send it to you guys if you have have

[39:11] the time to watch it. That made me even

[39:13] more, you guys know how anti I was

[39:15] before Rahand. Watching that made me

[39:17] even more anti-flock. I would be the fan

[39:19] of a privacy focused company running

[39:21] AOPRs in our town. Block is not it. And

[39:25] the representatives don't tell the

[39:27] truth. The company is awful. I strongly

[39:29] urge Woodside to stop doing business

[39:31] with them. And anyways, thank you all.

[39:33] Have a wonderful night and enjoy the

[39:35] rest of your meeting.

[39:37] >> All right. Thank you.

[39:39] Any other comments from the public?

[39:44] Okay, seeing none, we'll move on to I

[39:46] guess this is deliberation. Are you

[39:48] looking for direction on a third party

[39:50] auditor search basically?

[39:52] >> Yes. And then separately the council

[39:55] could choose to accept the um quarterly

[39:58] report.

[40:01] » Did we not already sort of give

[40:03] direction on

[40:04] >> Okay. So, this is just a a confirmation

[40:07] of looking for a third party auditor

[40:09] >> that we would do a request for proposal

[40:12] that we would come back to council with

[40:13] a request for proposal that would

[40:15] outline the terms that the town is

[40:17] looking for for a third party auditor

[40:19] and they would submit submit responses

[40:23] um to hopefully hit all of the data

[40:25] points that the council is looking for.

[40:27] >> Okay. Your feedback was Baker Tilly was

[40:29] not

[40:31] >> uh they have a well they have a conflict

[40:32] because they represent flock safety. So

[40:34] I would assume they would have the same

[40:35] conflict if we reached out to them.

[40:39] >> Okay. So I guess the question for

[40:41] everybody is is there anyone that cannot

[40:43] support

[40:44] uh an RFP for a third party auditor and

[40:48] uh cannot support approval or acceptance

[40:50] of this quarterly report.

[40:55] I did a ne a double negative there

[40:57] perhaps. So you also feel free to

[40:58] deliberate any way you wish.

[41:00] >> Just [laughter]

[41:01] deliberation. Sorry. this I would like

[41:03] to offer some deliberation. Um, so

[41:08] I think

[41:10] you all heard me ask a lot of questions

[41:13] at the last council meeting that um was

[41:16] on this topic and I still have all the

[41:18] same questions. Um, and I have still

[41:21] arrived at the same conclusion is that

[41:24] it's it's incumbent on us given all of

[41:27] the issues that have been reported in

[41:29] the press um to engage a third party

[41:32] auditor. Let me take a step back. Like

[41:34] we've been we have been dealing with the

[41:37] ALPR topic for a long time and I've

[41:40] always said I've always been in support

[41:43] of ALPRs. Um I think they are a valuable

[41:47] they they can be a very valuable law

[41:49] enforcement tool. So, I'm absolutely not

[41:52] opposed to ALPRs, but they have to be

[41:56] deployed and used in a way that does not

[41:59] compromise our policy and compromise uh

[42:02] our uh our privacy laws. And I have

[42:07] after thinking about this over and over

[42:09] again and really trying to wrap my head

[42:11] around it, I have come to the conclusion

[42:13] that we are we our our town staff is

[42:15] amazing. They are not data auditors.

[42:18] they are not equipped to you know audit

[42:22] the vast amounts of data that comes in

[42:26] um from the flot cameras. I mean just

[42:28] you know millions and millions and

[42:30] millions of records of data um nor nor

[42:34] is law enforcement. So the notion that

[42:37] um you know have there been any reports

[42:39] of misuse this is not the kind of thing

[42:41] that lends itself to reports of misuse.

[42:44] Um and

[42:47] um so it's you know however okay I mean

[42:50] then the other point is that I think

[42:53] anybody that has done 10 minutes of

[42:55] research on this topic I mean any

[42:58] reasonable person would come to the

[42:59] conclusion that there's a big question

[43:01] marks about block and whether it's a trustworthy vendor. I mean, our

[43:07] peer cities, um, peer law enforcement

[43:10] agencies have canled their contracts

[43:13] with Flock because of the privacy

[43:14] issues. So, I mean, there is definitely

[43:17] an issue with Flock. Um, and I mean, I

[43:20] think it's it's great that, you know,

[43:23] our town staff and and our law

[43:25] enforcement partners haven't uncovered

[43:26] any issue, but, you know, Woodside is

[43:30] just as vulnerable to the issues that

[43:32] have been discovered in other

[43:33] jurisdictions. Um, and I really think

[43:36] that it's only going to be through a

[43:38] third party audit that that if something

[43:40] had happened, it would be discovered or

[43:42] going forward. Um, so

[43:46] I mean I just I think we would be so

[43:48] remiss to just ignore all of the press

[43:51] reports and the and the concerns and the

[43:54] actual documented issues that have

[43:55] occurred in our peer cities. um to you

[43:59] know not look for you know at a bare

[44:02] minimum minimum put out an RFP to find

[44:05] somebody that could like look under the

[44:06] hood and see if you know Woodside is

[44:09] vulnerable to the really serious data

[44:11] breaches that you know many of the

[44:13] cities around us have experienced. Um so

[44:18] you know again I my position is very

[44:20] clear. Um, I think it's really important

[44:22] not, you know, at a bare minimum to put

[44:24] out an RFP, but I I think if we're going

[44:26] to continue use using this tool and

[44:28] we're going to continue using this tool

[44:30] with Flock and again, they're not the

[44:31] only game in town. There are other

[44:33] vendors. Um, so if we are going to

[44:36] continue to, you know, have these

[44:38] cameras up in town, deploy this, you

[44:40] know, surveillance tool, provide that

[44:42] data to law enforcement, and do so

[44:45] knowing that there's been so many issues

[44:47] and problems in the cities around us, I think our our role as elected

[44:52] officials, like our responsibility to

[44:55] make sure that the town, you know, data

[44:57] is you gathered and used in an

[44:59] appropriate way, like the absolute bare

[45:01] minimum that we owe to citizens is to is

[45:03] to put out an RFP and look for somebody

[45:05] that can do a do a real audit of what's

[45:07] happening here.

[45:10] >> Thank you. Other comments.

[45:13] [clears throat]

[45:13] >> I guess I would say that I'm I'm

[45:15] certainly open to looking into an audit,

[45:17] but I want to to to um caution

[45:21] everybody. I don't want to see a

[45:23] $500,000 audit. Um, and in a time when

[45:27] our budget is tight and we have no

[45:30] evidence, none whatsoever that there's

[45:32] any issue with Woodside. We have some

[45:34] press reports and issues elsewhere and a

[45:37] few uh police departments have or at

[45:38] least um other entities have experienced

[45:42] what they say are some problems. But I'm

[45:45] not ready to say that we should be

[45:46] spending a lot of money trying to audit

[45:48] something that we've been having no

[45:49] problem with whatsoever.

[45:53] Okay. Thank you, Council Member Brown.

[45:55] Other thoughts?

[45:56] >> Um, I thought I I recall at a prior

[45:59] meeting we had discussed potentially

[46:00] exploring other vendors. Um,

[46:04] >> I don't remember if it was an agreement

[46:06] that that was something we were all in

[46:08] agreement on.

[46:10] um

[46:11] >> don't recall that but I will let you

[46:13] know that the contract is coming up for

[46:15] renewal and that will be with our next

[46:17] quarterly report in July

[46:20] um for a discussion. So,

[46:23] uh, the last time when we got the

[46:25] cameras, we put out an RFP for, um,

[46:28] proposals to install the the cameras.

[46:31] >> And can maybe this is a question for,

[46:33] uh, Sergeant Brano. Uh, do we have, if

[46:37] we went with a system other than Flock,

[46:39] would you still would it could it

[46:42] provide the same

[46:44] service?

[46:45] >> Um, we would have to look at it. the the useful tool of lock um or or any APR

[46:53] I guess service would be in the network

[46:56] um that it has. Um so for example the stolen vehicle report um if FL if

[47:04] Woodside had an independent APR system

[47:08] um we would not have the flow that we

[47:10] had with the stolen vehicle. we would

[47:13] maybe have recovered the vehicle because

[47:15] it was recovered in the town of

[47:16] Woodside. But after it left Woodside,

[47:18] we'd have to go then go to a different

[47:20] system,

[47:21] in this case, Flock, and search Flock.

[47:24] So, you wouldn't have the flow of

[47:26] information and data as far as the

[47:30] solving the crimes as quickly. um the

[47:33] data would still be there but you'd be

[47:35] utilizing a completely different

[47:36] database unless

[47:38] um that other vendor and I don't even

[47:41] know if this exists but that other

[47:42] vendor has an agreement with lock for

[47:45] data sharing or something like that but

[47:47] I think that just opens up the door that

[47:48] you guys are trying to avoid right now.

[47:51] Um but I said the useful the the tool

[47:55] makes itself is the is the network um

[47:59] and how many agencies every agency in

[48:02] the county utilizes it.

[48:04] >> Um and the information sharing and the working with different agencies back

[48:12] and forth is what makes it what it is um

[48:15] and how useful it is in this situation.

[48:18] for perfect example was the stolen

[48:20] vehicle and the flow of it. The stolen

[48:22] vehicle was reported stolen out of the

[48:24] town of Woodside. Within 40 minutes, it

[48:27] was recovered in the town of Woodside.

[48:30] And because we had a flock hit on a

[48:33] suspect vehicle, we had that vehicle

[48:35] located utilizing flock. We found it in

[48:38] Redwood City. Our detectives went out

[48:40] there and we had two people in custody

[48:41] within two hours of the vehicle being

[48:44] reported. That would not be able to

[48:45] happen if the [clears throat] system was

[48:48] split in my opinion.

[48:51] >> Thank you. That makes sense. And I Yeah,

[48:53] it feels like block really is the only

[48:55] game in town as of right now.

[48:59] » That

[49:02] I had one other request uh and that's on

[49:04] sort of related is I like the idea about

[49:08] using it for traffic uh information

[49:11] purposes. We've looked into that in the

[49:13] past, I believe, and found it wasn't

[49:15] available. If it's become available now,

[49:17] I'd really like to look into see what

[49:19] the cost is and what we can get for it

[49:21] because we get a lot of traffic data

[49:23] reported by the sheriff department every

[49:24] month, but we're never able to truly

[49:27] analyze what to do with it. Um, and I

[49:31] think that uh something like a flock

[49:33] could give us a database that could be

[49:36] pretty easily uh analyzed to come to to

[49:39] conclusions of where are the biggest

[49:41] problems and when and where and who and

[49:44] how do we deal with it.

[49:46] Like to know the cost of that if it's

[49:48] available.

[49:50] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[49:51] >> Uh I I I thought we already gave

[49:54] direction on this. So uh but I guess it

[49:56] was just a straw pull uh last time

[49:58] around. So, yeah, I'm I'm in favor of u

[50:02] of a a third party auditor and um based

[50:04] on all the advocacy here on the council

[50:06] and by several citizens makes a lot of

[50:08] sense. I don't know what it's going to

[50:09] cost, but we'll find out. And um

[50:13] >> yeah, and I'm sorry to cut you.

[50:15] >> You were just staring at me. I didn't

[50:16] know you had a

[50:18] >> I'm sorry. I should have read you

[50:19] differently. Yes, council member. So

[50:21] after after the um

[50:24] >> I've got a something for folks to think

[50:26] about and I'd be interested in uh the

[50:28] sergeant's take on this. I actually

[50:29] tried to call you this afternoon,

[50:30] Sergeant. I don't you probably didn't

[50:32] get the message, but I want because I

[50:34] don't like surprising people at meetings

[50:36] like this, but the um uh so this is a

[50:40] you know it's a hot issue for everybody

[50:42] and I I I think all the comments are

[50:43] well taken and and Assan's concerns that

[50:45] he always voices so skillfully are well

[50:49] taken I think. And um but but the truth

[50:51] is is that what what we're the

[50:54] guardrails that we set up here in

[50:55] Woodside was that we were going to do an

[50:57] audit. We wrote a policy and so far it's

[50:59] working. I mean they're you know the I I

[51:02] admit that taking a sample of 10 out of

[51:04] thousands is a pretty modest thing but

[51:07] that's what we asked them to do and

[51:08] they're doing it and we have it we've

[51:10] yet to turn up you know that that um

[51:12] we're sharing data with agencies that we

[51:14] shouldn't be. So, I mean, that's they're obeying the laws that we wrote

[51:18] for them, and that's fine. Um, I also

[51:21] think I didn't actually remember

[51:24] what uh council member Aberish, the

[51:27] sergeant were just talking about, and

[51:29] that is that the beauty of the flock

[51:30] system, I'm making air quotes here, is

[51:33] that it's integrated throughout so many

[51:35] communities, and you could do it. I

[51:36] still remember at the very first

[51:38] meetings that we had was that a lot of

[51:41] people think that it's just contained

[51:42] within Woodside. In other words, there's

[51:44] a crime within Woodside. Did the flock

[51:46] cameras capture the criminal? We capture

[51:48] criminals here that committed crimes in

[51:50] Oakland or in St. Louis or somewhere

[51:53] else. And they they capture people in

[51:56] other cities. Well, the sergeant just

[51:58] mentioned one that happened last week in

[52:00] other cities that were committed here in

[52:02] Woodside. It's the integration of them.

[52:04] Um that's really the again with air

[52:06] quotes the beauty of the system that it

[52:08] can track people in other areas. And we

[52:10] have I remember uh talking with um uh

[52:13] the chief in Hillsboro about how they

[52:16] caught a criminal at the Hillsdale Mall

[52:18] that had just comm you know in um uh I

[52:21] think that's San Monteo if I'm not

[52:22] mistaken.

[52:24] That's right. Um that had committed a

[52:26] crime in Hillsboro in in u Hillsboro and

[52:30] um that's sort of the way the system

[52:31] works. Um but I do think that the

[52:34] auditing that we have in place now is

[52:36] insufficient. I do agree with the third

[52:38] party auditor by the way. I'm against

[52:39] using this for any other reason than

[52:42] what we have now. The narrow reason for

[52:43] law enforcement I think is why we did

[52:46] it. Not for speeding and not for you

[52:48] know other other activities. I think

[52:50] that um we should just sort of uh stick

[52:54] to what we originally went through.

[52:56] That's my my opinion. But the proposal

[52:58] that I have, I actually wrote this right

[53:00] after um Jason had given a previous uh

[53:05] um audit report on this thing. And if

[53:08] I'm not mistaken and and the sergeant

[53:10] can correct me if I'm wrong, the data

[53:12] that you get every quarter is exported

[53:16] onto an Excel spreadsheet with I think

[53:19] it's like seven columns. And the columns

[53:21] are the, you know, the number, the

[53:22] agency that requests it, the requesttor,

[53:25] which is some redacted or disguise

[53:27] somehow, the reason for it, etc. There

[53:29] were like those are the columns because

[53:31] that's what we asked them to audit. And

[53:32] then you choose out of those several

[53:34] thousand 10 at random, and you look at

[53:37] them to make sure that they comply with

[53:39] our policy. I think that's the way

[53:43] it's done. So, you have this Excel

[53:45] spreadsheet. So, I mean, I'm not a

[53:46] wizard on Excel, although I have to

[53:48] admit, I'm actually pretty good. But but

[53:50] the but on an Excel spreadsheet, all you

[53:52] have to do is sort by the agency.

[53:56] So, instead of picking 10 at random, I

[53:59] can propose a 100% audit that he can do

[54:03] with the click of a mouse once, and that

[54:05] is just sort the column on agency, and

[54:08] they'll be alphabetized, and they should

[54:09] almost all be Sano County Sheriff's

[54:12] Office. There should be some for the San

[54:15] Monteo Police Department and some for

[54:17] the Redwood City Police Department. If

[54:19] there's any other names on that, we're

[54:21] not in compliance. And that's 100%. We

[54:24] will reveal every single agency that's

[54:26] on there. So, that's actually easier

[54:29] than the current audit process, which is

[54:32] 10 out of 5,000 or whatever it is every

[54:35] single quarter. We could do a 100% audit

[54:38] simply by sorting on the agency

[54:40] requesttor column and alphabetizing it

[54:43] and taking a look at who's there and all

[54:45] I need back because this is the key

[54:47] element for us. It's we want to make

[54:48] sure that let's be frank about it. ICE

[54:50] is not accessing our information. That's

[54:52] kind of what this is about and I'm

[54:54] perfectly fine with that. So I um and I

[54:58] concur with the with the u reservations

[55:00] that we have about that. We're a little

[55:02] bit less concerned that Redwood City

[55:04] Police are doing it and was it a valid

[55:05] reason and who was the requesttor and

[55:07] what was the result of that? Uh we we

[55:09] sort of I I I think that um there's a

[55:12] certain trust that we have in our law

[55:15] enforcement officials and we've yet to

[55:16] uncover anything there and I seriously

[55:18] doubt pulling 10 at random is ever going

[55:20] to reveal them. But we could actually

[55:22] analyze again 100% of the inquiries from

[55:25] agencies and make sure that only the

[55:28] authorized agencies are there literally

[55:30] with the click of a mouse in a nancond

[55:32] and the sergeant can look at it and all

[55:34] he has to do is report back to us that

[55:36] every single encounter and inquiry made

[55:38] this quarter was from an authorized

[55:40] agency and that should satisfy this

[55:42] period. Now that doesn't mean that flock

[55:45] is perfect and it doesn't mean that

[55:46] they're doing things but they're not

[55:47] doing it in Woodside. So, I do assume

[55:50] that they or if I read the press reports

[55:52] correctly, they are in violation in some

[55:55] cities. I, you know, we've heard Oakland

[55:56] and Mountain View and uh I forgot there

[55:58] was some other ones that are there that

[56:00] that's their business. And I know that

[56:02] Flock's got perfect rationale for why

[56:04] it's not their fault and it was under a,

[56:06] you know, an investigation or it was

[56:08] under some other, you know, a trial

[56:10] period. Whatever it is, it's fine with

[56:12] me. It they are not violating Woodid's

[56:15] rules that we set up for them. and it is

[56:19] being administered by Sergeant Baragno.

[56:22] And so for that reason, I think we need

[56:24] that. Now, there's a second part to

[56:26] this. So, sorry to go on so long here,

[56:29] but the but but the first one is we may

[56:31] not need a third party audit. I'm all

[56:32] for it. If we could get this complete

[56:34] list of who's accessed the information,

[56:36] that would satisfy it because no matter

[56:37] what the auditor does, if they do a 95%

[56:40] audit, there's going to be somebody in

[56:42] this room who thinks that the 5% is

[56:44] where all the criminal that's where all

[56:46] the access are taking place. And even if

[56:48] we find another vendor, as soon as they

[56:50] go to Flock to track down that stolen

[56:52] car, you're open again. There you are.

[56:53] You've just exposed it to Flock once

[56:55] more. So, this is a way that we can at

[56:57] least assure that our data is is has not

[57:00] been accessed by an outside agency.

[57:04] The last thing I wanted to do is I think

[57:05] we need to get a certification from

[57:07] Flock that our data has in fact been

[57:10] deleted after the what is it 60 days? I

[57:12] think is is that is ours 45?

[57:14] >> 60 days.

[57:15] That is a certification that we

[57:17] need. That's the belt and suspenders. So

[57:20] if the Sanonteo County Sheriff's Office

[57:23] certifies that no other agency with a

[57:25] 100% audit has accessed our data and

[57:28] flock and tell us that all your data

[57:31] that's older than 60 days with the

[57:33] exception of the ones we know about

[57:34] ongoing investigations, trials, etc.

[57:37] that that are that are there and there's

[57:38] handful handfuls of those that continue

[57:40] past 60 days. If Flock can do that and

[57:43] we can do 100% audit, I think that's the

[57:45] belt and suspenders that at least I'm

[57:47] hearing from folks who are so concerned

[57:49] about it. We should be able to uh lock

[57:51] this down at least for a quarter.

[57:55] So anyway, that was my suggestion. I

[57:57] wrote this to um our prior town manager

[58:00] and did not hear back.

[58:02] >> I think that's an impressive um an

[58:05] impressive response. So, um, yeah, why

[58:08] are we going to pay somebody if we could

[58:09] just get the 5,000 data 500?

[58:11] >> We do a 100% audit. Yeah,

[58:13] >> as a list, but who who would audit that?

[58:15] We would

[58:16] >> the same person.

[58:17] >> That's if you want a third party

[58:18] auditor, that's going to be the issue.

[58:20] You're going to have to

[58:20] >> he's certifying though.

[58:21] >> I know. I know. But I think just belers

[58:25] if you wanted it. Could could that

[58:27] report be generated just the agency

[58:29] names of every not not the cases not all

[58:32] the details but just a list of all

[58:34] agencies that have accessed it in alpha

[58:36] order. Uh and it could go to a staff member here it could

[58:43] go to council. It could go um you know

[58:45] there are ways to do that that we don't

[58:46] that we could effectively become a third

[58:48] party auditor by reviewing it. What are

[58:50] your thoughts Jenn? Yeah, I mean I think

[58:51] the point here is is to not oversimplify

[58:55] it but trust but verify, right? And we

[58:57] have reports that Flock is not

[59:00] trustworthy, that they're unreliable.

[59:02] Um, and you know, you know, I absolutely

[59:06] have all the respect for our law

[59:07] enforcement partners, but there's been

[59:08] reports from other jurisdictions that

[59:10] there's been misuse by law enforcement

[59:12] partners. But I think to really ensure

[59:14] that this data is being used

[59:17] appropriately,

[59:18] um, we really just need a neutral third

[59:20] party to come in and say, "Yep, you

[59:22] know, we've looked at it. There's no

[59:24] issues." I think it could be structured

[59:26] in a very cost-effective way. It's also

[59:29] what other jurisdictions are doing as

[59:31] well. I think this is the the um where

[59:34] all this where all this is headed um

[59:37] given all of the issues that towns have

[59:40] experienced and law enforcement agencies

[59:41] have experienced with uh flock. I mean

[59:44] when I say law enforcement agencies have

[59:46] experienced issues with flock. I mean I

[59:47] think the the mountain view uh police

[59:51] shut it down. I think there's other

[59:53] examples of that. So, um I'm all for

[59:55] making our um you know, our audit like

[59:59] to the extent we want to continue doing

[1:00:00] it more robust, but I I think in order

[1:00:02] to really confirm that um everything is

[1:00:06] above board, we really needed we we are

[1:00:08] not data auditors, right? Like this is

[1:00:10] very technical stuff. It's all about um

[1:00:13] you know, stuff that I am not equipped

[1:00:15] to audit at all. Um, and

[1:00:20] it I think we just need somebody that's

[1:00:22] skilled in this to come in and be like,

[1:00:24] "Yep, we're all good."

[1:00:27] >> What I'm But what I'm proposing is no

[1:00:29] matter, like I said, if we do a 95%

[1:00:32] audit, there's going to be a question

[1:00:33] about the 5% that you miss. I'm

[1:00:35] proposing a 100% audit. And yeah, I'm perfectly fine with somebody

[1:00:40] verifying what the sergeant comes up

[1:00:42] with. First of all, Sergeant, I I I'm

[1:00:45] sorry that I didn't get back to you. Is

[1:00:46] what I propose feasible?

[1:00:48] >> So just uh number-wise, you're you're

[1:00:51] probably looking around it is 100%

[1:00:54] feasible. Um the way it is is the audit

[1:00:56] report is going to that I run, you have

[1:00:59] to run it in 30-day increments.

[1:01:02] So for that 30 days, I'd say just

[1:01:05] averaging a 30-day inquiry, you're

[1:01:07] probably running anywhere between 7 to

[1:01:10] 10,000 search inquiries into the

[1:01:13] network. So over that quarter you're

[1:01:15] looking close to you're not at the 5,000

[1:01:18] number range. You're more at the 30,000,

[1:01:21] you know, 25 to 30,000 range. Um but

[1:01:23] that column of the agencies that um

[1:01:28] searched it um is easily able to sort it

[1:01:32] in in that Excel spreadsheet. Um it's

[1:01:35] also built into the privacy settings

[1:01:37] that you guys have already established

[1:01:39] as far as who's able to look at it. uh

[1:01:42] search network and that's also there's

[1:01:45] three in the column and it's the

[1:01:47] sheriff's office road city and uh Santo

[1:01:50] PD. So um that's I could easily run

[1:01:55] those reports. I could easily sort out

[1:01:56] that column for you guys and do that um

[1:01:59] if you wanted to look at all

[1:02:01] [clears throat] again it fluctuates each

[1:02:02] month on how many inquiries into the

[1:02:04] system are there. But I'd say you're

[1:02:06] averaging probably 25 to 30,000

[1:02:08] inquiries for a quarter.

[1:02:10] >> A lot. I mean, another thing is like,

[1:02:12] you know, this this audit wouldn't be

[1:02:14] able to to verify um that our settings

[1:02:17] haven't been altered by Flock, which has

[1:02:19] happened to other jurisdictions, right?

[1:02:20] I mean, Flock already told us that we

[1:02:22] weren't on national lookup, but can we

[1:02:24] really believe that given that they said

[1:02:25] that to other jurisdictions and turned

[1:02:27] out to be wrong?

[1:02:32] » Well, one thing we've learned is that

[1:02:34] because you can search for it's not just

[1:02:36] sorting. you could simply search for ICE

[1:02:38] and search for any of the issues very

[1:02:40] quickly. Um, at least it's telling us

[1:02:43] that maybe the scope of a third party

[1:02:44] auditor isn't going to be that

[1:02:45] expensive.

[1:02:47] So,

[1:02:49] um, and I, you know, I'd point out that

[1:02:51] even if we changed vendors on this and

[1:02:55] we used Acme

[1:02:57] camera system or whatever, whatever it

[1:02:59] is out there, their database could be

[1:03:01] accessed by ICE, too. We just don't

[1:03:03] know.

[1:03:05] Well, I think it depends on

[1:03:06] >> So, as soon as we get a report from De

[1:03:08] Moines, Iowa that the Acme database was accessed by ICE without them

[1:03:12] knowing, do we now look for the next

[1:03:14] vendor? I mean, it's just I think we're

[1:03:16] sort of chasing it here. We control the

[1:03:19] access through the Sanonteo County

[1:03:22] Sheriff's Office and that and that's

[1:03:24] where I think we should focus our

[1:03:26] efforts. I would like to get a statement

[1:03:27] from Flock at least annually that our

[1:03:30] data is being deleted. I think council

[1:03:33] member Wall makes a good point and that

[1:03:35] our our data has not been accessed by

[1:03:37] outside agencies. Their our database

[1:03:40] that they have not the because if it's

[1:03:42] been deleted every 60 days the exposure

[1:03:45] is 60 days.

[1:03:46] >> I mean I think I don't know if you call

[1:03:47] but I think a lot is not deleted. I

[1:03:49] think a lot gets bundled into this

[1:03:51] active investigation bucket. Um, so it

[1:03:54] was surprising to me to learn that that

[1:03:57] um

[1:03:59] that a lot of this is not deleted within

[1:04:02] 60 days. And I think an audit should look into whether or not um

[1:04:08] things are rightfully in that bucket of,

[1:04:10] you know, being an active investigation.

[1:04:11] There's a lot of nuance here. Um, and I wish I did a better job of trying to

[1:04:15] tease out some of the nuance, but again,

[1:04:18] because it's so nuanced and technical, I

[1:04:20] think it's really important that we we

[1:04:22] have a third party look at it. That's

[1:04:23] that is that

[1:04:24] >> I'm I'm in complete agreement.

[1:04:28] » Okay. So, uh you think we should give a

[1:04:32] take a vote on direction uh to accept

[1:04:35] and also uh direction to third party

[1:04:39] auditor RFP put one in place.

[1:04:41] >> I think that was a motion. Yes.

[1:04:43] >> Okay. Do we have that motion?

[1:04:47] >> It' be one motion or do you need two

[1:04:48] motions? One motion.

[1:04:54] » I mean, I think the acceptance of the

[1:04:56] audit and then voting on a third party

[1:04:58] voting, you know what I mean? It is two

[1:04:59] separate concepts. So, I

[1:05:02] >> we got the time.

[1:05:03] >> Um, but

[1:05:06] it Okay.

[1:05:07] >> Get a motion to accept. I'm

[1:05:10] >> Can we?

[1:05:11] >> Yes.

[1:05:16] Do we have a second?

[1:05:17] >> Oh, I'll make a second. I'm sorry.

[1:05:20] This is

[1:05:20] >> This was to This just to accept the Yes.

[1:05:25] >> Uh, Council Member Aubish.

[1:05:27] >> Yes.

[1:05:27] >> Council member Brown.

[1:05:28] >> Yes.

[1:05:28] >> Council member [snorts] Gold.

[1:05:29] >> Yes.

[1:05:30] >> Council member Wall.

[1:05:32] So,

[1:05:34] um I'm going to vote yes to accept

[1:05:37] because I do think that the audit um

[1:05:42] complies with what we have asked for. I

[1:05:44] think town staff has given us what we

[1:05:46] have asked for. I think I've made it

[1:05:48] really very clear. I think it's not

[1:05:50] adequate. So, I just wanted to explain

[1:05:54] my vote. Um so,

[1:05:57] >> got it. And and so it was smart to break

[1:05:59] these out. That's good. Uh, and I'm a

[1:06:01] yes as well. Yeah. And the second part

[1:06:04] is the motion on the third party auditor

[1:06:07] RFP.

[1:06:08] >> Uh, I move to um give the staff

[1:06:12] direction to um draft an RFP um for a

[1:06:17] third party auditor.

[1:06:20] >> Second.

[1:06:21] >> Council member Alberish.

[1:06:23] >> Yes. Council member Brown.

[1:06:24] >> Yes. Council member Gold.

[1:06:26] >> Yes. Council

[1:06:26] >> member Wall. Yes. Mayor

[1:06:27] >> Donowski.

[1:06:29] >> Yes. Thank you. And thank you, Sergeant.

[1:06:31] Appreciate you being here tonight.

[1:06:34] >> Thank you very much.

[1:06:35] >> Take care.

[1:06:40] » Moving on to reports, volunteer report,

[1:06:43] anything?

[1:06:44] >> Yes. Uh the co-ed softball league is

[1:06:47] going to be starting uh in June and on

[1:06:50] June 22nd. And uh registration for

[1:06:54] current team members is going to be

[1:06:56] going out. And then if anybody in town

[1:06:58] is interested in starting up another

[1:06:59] team, then they need to reach out to the

[1:07:02] softball commissioner, Richard Mains, as

[1:07:04] soon as possible.

[1:07:07] Thank you. Any council communications?

[1:07:13] Okay, seeing none, uh we will call it at

[1:07:16] 809. Thank you all.

Town Council Meeting - May 26, 2026

Transcript