[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.