{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 6, 2018- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 6:01 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella and\nMayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(18-055) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Government\nCode \u00a7 54956.9); Case Name: Myers, Jason V. City of Alameda, et al; Court: Superior\nCourt of California, County of Alameda; Case Number: RG15777911.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and the City Clerk\nannounced that regarding existing litigation case name: Meyers, Jason V. City of\nAlameda, et al - direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 6:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 2, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE\nCITY COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY\nTO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (SACIC)\nTUESDAY- -FEBRUARY 6, 2018- 6:59 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners Ezzy Ashcraft,\nMatarrese, Oddie, Vella and Mayor/Chair Spencer -\n5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nThe City Clerk announced the Audited Financial Statements [paragraph no. 18-057\nwould not be heard.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n(*18-056CC/18-003SACIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and SACIC\nMeeting Held on January 16, 2018. Approved.\n(*18-057CC/18-004SACIC) Recommendation to Accept the Fiscal Year 2016-17\nAudited Financial Statements and Compliance Reports. Not heard.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 7:07 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk and Secretary, SACIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting of the\nAlameda City Council and Successor Agency\nto the Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 3, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 6, 2018- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Spencer convened the meeting at 7:07 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie,\nVella, and Mayor Spencer - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(18-058) Proclamation Declaring February 2018 as Black History Month.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Betty Williams; Margie\nSanford; Rosie Parks; and Cindy Acker, Child Unique.\nMs. Williams made brief comments and showed a Proclamation from former Senator\nDon Perata, newspaper articles and photographs.\nMs. Acker made brief comments.\n(18-059) Proclamation Declaring February 6, 2018 as Audrey Lord-Hausman and\nRichard Hausman Day.\nMayor Spencer read the proclamation and presented it to Ms. Lord-Hausman and Mr.\nHausman.\nMs. Lord-Hausman and Mr. Hausman made brief comments.\nThe Councilmembers made brief comments.\nCommended Ms. Lord-Hausman for her work on the universal design ordinance: David\nBurton, Alameda.\n(18-060) Mayor Spencer did the daily reading for the Season for Nonviolence on\nstruggle.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(18-061) Tim Anderson, Renee McLaughlin, Mitchell Dunn, Joan Boucher, Renan\nDincer, and Josh Gordonson Maker Farmers, submitted information; discussed the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 4, "text": "farm, Upland community and tiny houses; requested assistance from the City Council to\nhelp establish and permit the uses.\n(18-062) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT), submitted information;\nstated ACT supports affordable housing and recommends increasing affordable housing\nrequirements.\n(18-063) Paula Rainey, Alameda, submitted information on Little Palestine by the Bay\nevent and invited everyone to attend.\n(18-064) Ken Peterson, Alameda, expressed support for the Black History Month\nproclamation and discussed climate change.\n(18-065) Rasheed Shabazz, Alameda, announced Black History month events;\nencouraged everyone to attend.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Oddie moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*18-066) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on January 2, 2018.\nApproved.\n(*18-067) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,294,180.61.\n(*18-068) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Award a Contract in the\nAmount of $60,000 to First American Transit for the Discounted Taxi Program Serving\nSeniors and People with Disabilities. Accepted.\n(*18-069) Resolution No. 15344, \"Approving Receipt of Revenue from the Caltrans\nAdaptation Planning Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2017-18, for Preparation of the City\nof Alameda Climate Adaptation Plan.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(18-070) Recommendation to Accept Alameda Free Library Fiscal Year 2016-2017\nAnnual Report.\nThe Library Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese recognized the Student Connect Program; stated that\nprogram is the best program.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Oddie suggested a fix it clinic similar to other libraries, which reuses\nitems that would otherwise go into the landfill.\nThe Library Director stated that the Earth Day committee is discussing a fix it clinic.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Student Connect Program could be\nmade available to all high school students.\nThe Library Director responded the program is still in the pilot stage, but staff is looking\ninto adding other schools.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she hopes all high school students will have\naccess to the program.\nVice Mayor Vella thanked the Library staff for all they do and the programs offered.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the report.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(18-071) Recommendation to Accept Report on Alameda Crime Data, Statistics, and\nTrends from 1988 through 2017.\nThe Police Chief introduced the Crime Prevention Specialist and gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nMayor Spencer inquired how many cameras for the Sharing Electronic Evidence (SEE)\nprogram are around Alameda, to which the Police Chief responded that he is does not\nhave a number; stated people need to volunteer to participate in the program.\nMayor Spencer commended the Alameda Police Department for the Shop with a Cop\nevents.\nThe Police Chief continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about vehicle break-ins due to a key fob extender.\nThe Police Chief responded a device allows criminals to try to unlock cars with a key fob\nextender; suggested taking precautions to prevent access to vehicles.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether specific information is asked regarding the type of\ncameras individuals have to be registered in SEE\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether the data is available to show how many crimes are\ncommitted by people outside of Alameda.\nThe Police Chief responded that he does not currently have said information; the ratio is\napproximately 48% from outside of town.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how long cases are kept open when there is no video or\nwitness to help solve cases.\nThe Police Chief responded cases are left open; stated cases can be suspended, but\ncan always be reopened; violent crimes are always left open; if there is a statute of\nlimitations, a report will still be done to show who committed the crime.\nExpressed concerns with the fear based policy and how residents call in about\nsuspicious people might be the same people advocating for policy and the police forum;\nurged Council to have regular reporting by race, gender and geography to allow people\nto see that people in different areas encounter law enforcement differently: Rasheed\nShabazz, Alameda.\nOutlined the way a criminal might access a vehicle using a key fob extender: Dr. Jeremy\nGillula, Electronic Frontier Foundation.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the code can be copied when someone clicks to lock\nthe car, to which Dr. Gillula responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the report.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(18-072) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager, or Her Designee, to\nNegotiate and Execute Purchase Agreements not to Exceed $500,000 for the\nAcquisition of Thirteen Fixed Location Automated License Plate Recognition (ALPR)\nSystems; and\n(18-072A) Resolution No. 15345, \"Amending the General Fund and Technology\nReplacement Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2017-18.\" Adopted.\nThe Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired who sets the retention policy, to which the Police Chief\nresponded that he does.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether setting the retention policy is within the role of the\nPolice Chief's discretion, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is a way to limit the access to the information.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nBrian Rodrigues, Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC), stated\nsharing of information with other agencies is only done at the discretion of the official\ncustodian of the data; in response to Senate Bill (SB) 54, Immigration and Customs\nEnforcement (ICE) has been cut off from the shared data.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired what the policy was prior to SB54.\nThe Police Chief responded prior to SB54, the policy for Alameda Police Department\n(APD) was to share information with all other agencies; as soon as he realized ICE\ncould have access, he addressed the situation.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is a way to know if ICE accessed APD's\ninformation.\nThe Police Chief responded that he does not believe so.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether APD receives a notification if another jurisdiction is\naccessing the information.\nMr. Rodrigues responded it is not possible to look backwards to see who has viewed\nthe information previously.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired if there is a way to change the retention time.\nThe Police Chief responded the retention time can be set according to the Police Chief's\nrequest; stated that he would like to leave the retention policy at six months.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired why policy sets the retention at six months.\nThe Police Chief responded in the event the crime is reported at a later date; stated six\nmonths is a compromise from one year.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how quickly the data is accessible through the ALPR's.\nThe Police Chief responded it depends on the type of crime.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether data shows how the ALPR information has assisted\nin solving crimes.\nThe Police Chief responded that he does not have said data; stated it is difficult to\nmeasure the crime that does not occur because people know Alameda has cameras.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there will be signage stating Alameda has ALPR's.\nThe Police Chief responded signage can be done.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired why the money for the ALPR's is not spent on\nmore police officers and training.\nThe Police Chief responded the money being spent on the ALPR's is from salary\nvacancies; stated spending the money is not preventing APD from hiring another officer.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether it is challenging to hire new officers, to\nwhich the Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there are retirements coming up in the\nPolice Department.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; discussed the difficulties with trying to\nkeep up with the rate of retiring officers.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the camera information could be used\nto monitor the businesses people frequent or places worship.\nThe Police Chief responded that is not the intention of APD.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the request is for fixed cameras at the\nports to the City, to which the Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated fixed\ncameras cannot follow someone around; only a mobile unit could do that.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the audit would capture said\ninformation, to which the Police Chief responded the audit would capture the number of\nhits received and the number of inquiries made into the system.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether APD is able to guarantee that ICE\nwould not have access to APD data from an ALPR.\nThe Police Chief responded that he is 100% certain that ICE cannot access the data\nfrom him; stated someone could take a photo and share the information with other\nagencies but he will ensure anyone working for APD will not share information.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is an overview photo that is also taken of the\nvehicle or just the license plate.\nThe Police Chief responded the cameras APD purchased are designed to only take a\nphotograph of the license plate.\nBrian Shockley, Vigilant Solutions, stated two images are taken; an inferred image of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 9, "text": "the license plate and a color overview image which does include the area surrounding\nthe license plate; the second image is used for investigations where the Officer may\nneed to identify the make and model of the vehicle.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the image captures parts of the vehicle, to which Mr.\nShockley responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired about the cost for the physical purchase versus the\ndata.\nThe Police Chief responded part of the contract is for data storage.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether other vendors can be considered and how\ngoing with another vendor would work with the existing cameras.\nThe Police Chief responded there are other vendors; stated the staff report done in\n2013 was a sole source purchase from Vigilant; APD checked with other departments\nand he feels Vigilant is the best vendor.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the City's data is protected due to news reports\nof ICE accessing Vigilant's information.\nThe Police Chief responded the data that Vigilant provides to ICE is private data only,\nnot law enforcement data.\nMr. Shockley stated the contract with ICE includes access to private data only.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired how the City can guarantee the data will not be shared\nwith ICE.\nMr. Shockley responded in terms of the data security, Vigilant meets or exceeds the\nsecurity of any law enforcement agency or financial institution.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether there are ways to be notified if data is accessed\nor if anyone demands access to the data.\nMr. Shockley responded the data is not Vigilant's data; stated requests for data would\nbe forwarded to the Police Chief.\nIn response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, Mr. Shockley stated the Police Chief\nwould get his personnel to run the report; Vigilant personnel does not have access to\nthe data.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether an option is to purchase the cameras, but\nreturn for more discussion at a later date.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 10, "text": "The Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired what the scenario would be in the event that ICE\nrequests information for a criminal investigation.\nThe Police Chief responded that he has not been asked by ICE for information yet;\nstated that if he received a request from ICE asking for assistance in a criminal matter,\nhe would request more information and want to see a warrant; he would also report the\nrequest to the City Manager; ICE would need to ask for the data.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the request would need to be about a\nsuspected criminal or someone who has already been convicted of a violent crime.\nThe Police Chief responded the most likely scenario would be a suspect identified in a\ncriminal offense and a vehicle associated with the suspect; stated having a search or\narrest warrant signed by a judge for a criminal matter is in compliance with SB54 and\nSanctuary City laws.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the City of Alameda was on the list of cities that\nreceived letters from the federal government.\nThe Police Chief responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cameras will be on 24 hours a day, 7\ndays a week and indiscriminately track every license plate that goes past.\nThe Police Chief responded the cameras photograph the license plates indiscriminately.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether deleted data can be recovered, to which\nthe Police Chief responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the data is backed up.\nMr. Shockley responded there are backups, but the backups honor the same retention\npolicy.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether an agency that is not authorized by\nAlameda could access to Alameda's data.\nMr. Shockley responded not through Vigilant System.\nMr. Rodrigues responded not through NCRIC; stated someone could possibly obtain the\ninformation through printing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is more concerned with someone obtaining\nthe data electronically.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how ICE is related to car repossessions and\nfinancial institutions.\nMr. Shockley responded there is no connection.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the contract with ICE is recent, to which\nMr. Shockley responded the contract originated in 2018.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Vigilant notified APD of the contract.\nMr. Shockley responded a notice was sent out to all California Law Enforcement\nAgencies immediately following the announcement of the contract; stated the contract\nitself cannot be discussed.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she believes Vigilant put the Police Chief at a\ndisadvantage by not giving him a heads up about the contract.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether data shows the cameras are effective.\nThe Police Chief responded the Piedmont Police Department has had a 37 to 38% drop\nin property crime since the installation of the cameras.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the reduction in crime has been due to the\ndeterrent factor or if people have actually been apprehended.\nThe Police Chief responded that he believes there is a deterrent effect if people know\nthere are cameras.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Police Chief is willing to look at another vendor.\nThe Police Chief responded that he is willing to look at other vendors.\nMayor Spencer inquired what the monthly or annual cost.\nThe Police Chief responded the cost is approximately $500 per camera per year.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Alameda currently has four cameras from Vigilant, to\nwhich the Police Chief responded four patrol cars have three cameras each.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether all 12 cameras were purchased from Vigilant, to which\nthe Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the cameras would be compatible with another vendor;\nwhether license plates are already being captured elsewhere, such as FasTrak; and\nwhether said information is shared with law enforcement.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 12, "text": "The Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired what other cities are capturing license plates.\nThe Police Chief responded several cities have them.\nMayor Spencer inquired about hacking data.\nThe Police Chief responded that he is unaware of any hacking incidents.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether there are examples of cameras helping people.\nThe Police Chief responded most of the APD's successes have been property crimes.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether anything is preventing one agency from sharing the\ndata with another agency.\nMr. Rodrigues responded if a law enforcement agency has access, it could run\nindividual queries that are subject to rules, including who information can be shared\nwith.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the IRS has access to the data and could they share\nit with other law enforcement agencies.\nMr. Rodrigues responded in the affirmative if that law enforcement agency is conducting\nan investigation.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is anything stopping the IRS from sharing the\ninformation, Mr. Rodrigues responded such actions would be punishable by law,\nincluding loss of employment or worse.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether there is an option to immediately delete the overview\nphoto.\nMr. Rodrigues responded eliminating the imagery would be compromising the\neffectiveness of the tool.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Vella's inquiry, Mr. Rodrigues descriptors, such as color, are\nnot present, which makes the photo relevant and is used in criminal investigations.\nThe Police Chief stated there are situations, such as stolen license plates, which require\nthe description of the car.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the technology has been used in the past, to which\nthe Police Chief responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 13, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella inquired whether there have been more than one case of stolen\nlicense plates, to which the Police Chief responded there are many.\nMr. Shockley stated there is not an option to immediately delete the overview images;\nlaw enforcement would be at a severe disadvantage if the overview photo is deleted; in\nthe event of duplicate plates, stolen plates, make and model of the vehicle is needed;\nprovided an example of a success story from a contextual image.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how ALPRs can help officers in the field who are\nabout to make a traffic stop.\nThe Police Chief responded an alert notifies dispatch to inform officers if the vehicle was\ninvolved in a crime.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police Chief has identified areas of\nAPD's policy that need to be modified for fixed location cameras and to ensure data is\nnot shared with ICE.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated regardless of the decision tonight,\nhe will change the policy to ensure data is not shared with ICE.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the same policy reference would be in\nthe contract with Vigilant.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated that he would be willing to include\nlanguage that states: \"sharing the data with another agency outside of APD's\nauthorization would be cause for immediate termination of the contract.\nMayor Spencer called a recess at 10:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:08 p.m.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft returned at 10:09 p.m.\n***\nStated a reason he moved to Alameda is because it is safe; he would be upset if the\nPolice Department needed to use the readers to solve a crime and the City did not have\nit; discussed Police resources: Michael Robles-Wong\nStated that he is concerned about Vigilant Solutions not releasing Alameda's\ninformation; suggested getting said agreement in writing: Jeremy Gillula, Electronic\nFrontier Foundation.\nExpressed concern over the cameras; urged funds be spent on other policing methods:\nVida Gillula, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the cameras following the cannabis restrictions the City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 14, "text": "adopted: Phillip Redd, Alameda Cannabis LLC.\nExpressed concern over the cameras having unintended consequences and the cost in\nrespect to the crimes that would be solved; stated that he supports readers on cars, but\nopposes fixed readers; urged the matter be deferred: Jeff Gould, Alameda.\nDiscussed information not being private and car break-ins; urged Council to vote for the\nreaders; requested Council make a motion to allow more time: Former Councilmember\nLil Arnerich, Alameda.\nWhile Mr. Arnerich continued to speak, Councilmember Oddie moved approval of\nallowing more time.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which failed because a vote was not\ntaken.\n***\n(18-073) Mayor Spencer stated a vote is needed to consider the remaining items: the\nreferrals; noted no Councilmember made a motion to do so.\n***\nUrged Council to support the Police Chief's request: Mike Fennelly, Alameda.\nExpressed strong support for ALPR, which a majority of her neighbors support; thanked\nthe Police Chief for addressing neighborhood concerns: Susan Solomon, Alameda.\nStated the readers are the key to smart crime solutions; the Police Department should\nhave all possible tools: Bill Garvine, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over retaining data for six months and data leaks; stated information\nis subject to subpoenas: Rebecca Jeschke, Alameda.\nSubmitted his comments stated that he did not want to live in a gated community, which\nthe cameras are a move towards; he is against the proposal: David Teeters, Alameda.\nStated Alameda Progressives opposes spending funds on 13 ALPRs; this is not the\ntime to increase surveillance: Cheri Johansen, Alameda Progressives.\nStated the proposal is fatally flawed and lacks restrictions on how the data can be used;\nCouncil should table the matter until another vendor is found and restrictions are in\nplace; Vigilant should release its contract with ICE: Matt Cagle, American Civil Liberties\nUnion (ACLU) of Northern California.\nStated that he opposes the readers; the Bay Area should not be creating this\ninformation: Ivar Diehl, Berkeley.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 15, "text": "Stated Alameda is only not sharing data with ICE because of the media; urged looking\ninto a different vendor; discussed crime data; stated 0.3% of the data leads to solving\ncrime: Mike Katz-Lacabe, Center for Human Rights and Privacy.\nStated ICE has had intermittent access to data; Vigilant asked clients to sign non-\ndisclosure agreements, which is bad practice; agreement is needed in writing that\nVigilant will not release Alameda's data: Tracy Rosenberg, Media Alliance.\nStated Alameda residents have been focused on oversight and use of the data, which\nare legitimate cause for concern, but mass surveillance is not justifiable for Police\nactivities: Ruth Smiler, Alameda.\n***\n(18-074) Mayor Spencer stated a motion is needed to go past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval.\nMayor Spencer seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nStated that he has not seen that mobile readers have worked and is concerned about\nthe stationary readers working; expressed concern over data leaks: Dan Wood,\nAlameda.\nStated that she is opposed mobile readers; requested data only be kept for 24 hours;\nurged Council not to authorize the purchase: Donna Eyestone.\nStated that he has a lot of concerns about the proposal; policy should be decided on\nfact: Brendan Sullivan-Sari\u00f1ana, Alameda.\nStated her family comes to Alameda a lot; cautioned voting to add a layer of\nsurveillance: Anonymous.\nStated no one can go anywhere without being recorded; cameras are everywhere\nbecause they are effective; law abiding citizens do not care if they are not doing\nanything wrong: Kevin Peterson, WHOA.\nUrged Council to review the contract and do its due diligence: Genevieve Southwick.\nStated Alameda's crime rate is low; the Police response time is low; greater attention\nshould be paid to repaving streets; he does not want his information scanned and held\nfor six months: Eron, Alameda.\nStated crime is up; discussed crime in his neighborhood; he has not heard data has\nbeen misused; expressed support for giving the Police Department the tools needed to\ndo their job: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not convinced that Vigilant is the right\ncontractor for Alameda; she would like to look at other vendors and include language in\nthe contract to ensure the data is not shared; inquired what the process was four years\nago.\nThe Police Chief responded that he made a draft policy, the Council made suggestions\nand the draft was published; stated the policy is a living, modifiable document.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how often audits would be done with the\nALPR's.\nThe Police Chief responded that he can look at the record; stated four audits have been\ndone so far.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether there would be reporting back to\nCouncil and public.\nThe Police Chief responded that he can report back in the interval Council requests.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the Police Chief would look into\nsomething other than a single source contract\nCouncilmember Matarrese raised a point of order; stated he objects because questions\nshould be brought back to the body and the body will direct the City Manager.\nMayor Spencer stated all Councilmembers should make statements, then reassess\nwhere Council stands.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the process would be to look at other\npotential vendors.\nThe City Manager responded if the Council direction is to look at other vendors, staff\nwould do a Request for Proposals (RFP) and return to Council for direction.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is concerned with other agencies having access to\nAlameda's data; she would like the City to be notified if another agency requests\nAlameda's data; she would like specific language in the event of Vigilant receives a\nsubpoena or warrant for Alameda's data; she is looking for the data that shows the\ncameras will reduce crime or help solve cases; she has concerns with Vigilant being the\nvendor; a more robust conversation is needed in terms of the data.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he does not trust Vigilant; he is in favor of the\nconcept, but would like to hear more from the community and the ACLU; he would like\nto look at other vendors; he is offended by any implications that Alameda is targeting\nOakland; he would like a deeper analysis of the data to show that the cameras work to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 17, "text": "deter crime; he is concerned with chain sharing of data and the retention period; he\nwould like to see what affect the cameras have on the business district and people\nwanting to come spend money in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Alameda has the finest police force in the Bay Area;\nhe cannot vote for cameras that violate the U.S. Constitution; he would like to see the\nstatistics that show the effectiveness of the data.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the cameras violate the Fourth Amendment.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded there is no reasonable expectation of privacy\nwhen people are on the roads.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether it is the Assistant City Attorney's legal opinion that the\nreaders do not violate the Fourth Amendment, to which the Assistant City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney has any concerns with\nALPR's.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded that he has concerns with the firewall and the\nfact that Vigilant is doing business with ICE; stated policy can be crafted to address\nsecurity concerns.\nMayor Spencer stressed the significance of the rising trend in the more serious, Part 1, ,\ncrimes; inquired whether the locations are the best for new cameras.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated placing the cameras at the\nentrances and exits of the Island is neutral.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether it is the Police Chief's professional opinion that\npurchasing the cameras is the best way to utilize the $500,000.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative, given the department vacancies; stated if\nhe had Police Officers ready to start working, the answer would be no.\nMayor Spencer stated the number of serious crimes needs to be reduced; she supports\nthe cameras being utilized; she is concerned with using Vigilant as a vendor; she would\nprefer doing an RFP; she would like annual reports with more data.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether there are any circuit court cases on GPS.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired which circuit court has addressed ALPR's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 18, "text": "The Assistant City Attorney responded the Sixth Circuit.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the Ninth Circuit has addressed ALPR's.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that he had limited time to\nconduct more research.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there is a 2009 Ninth Circuit case from San Francisco dealing\nwith ALPR's misreading license plates; stated the Ninth Circuit is holding that\ntechnology alone cannot be the basis for a stop; inquired whether APD has something\nin the policy that specifically addresses said issue.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the Officers have to independently\nverify the hit on the license plate.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired how the Officers conduct the verification.\nThe Police Chief responded that the Officer verify the make and model of the vehicle\nwith dispatch.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether data is exempt from the California Public Records\nAct due to the data being investigative reports.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the California Supreme Court indicated that is not acceptable\nand sent the matter back down to the Superior Court in 2017.\nThe Police Chief stated said case was appealed and is pending being heard by the U.S.\nSupreme Court; the issue is a records issue, not technology or data storage; the issue\nis whether the data is releasable under the California Public Records Act.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the consensus among the City Attorney community is\nthat ALPR records should be treated as investigative reports just like any other police\nrecord and should not be disclosed.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired whether the City of Alameda is following said policy, to which\nthe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the process should be if the Council wants\nto go with another vendor.\nThe City Manager responded Council could direct staff to allocate the funds for\npurchase of ALPR's and to move forward with an RFP; the RFP would include specific\nlanguage on the City's policy; the contract would be open to any contractor, including\nVigilant; the criteria will be based on Council input.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 19, "text": "Mayor Spencer inquired whether the funds can be allocated tonight, to which the City\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Spencer stated the second part would be the RFP and the terms of the RFP.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would like to see a revised policy with\nCouncil's input and the contract language.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether or not the budget could be disconnected from\nthe contract with Vigilant.\nThe City Manager responded the funds can be set aside; stated choosing the vendor\nwould require an RFP.\nCouncilmember Oddie suggested there be a workshop to gather comments.\nThe City Manager stated setting aside the funds for the use does not commit future use\nof the funds; stated if the RFP comes back and does not meet the criteria, Council can\napprove or deny the matter at that time.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether Council could approve or deny the contract in\nthe future, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of allocating the fund savings identified in\nthe report to the Information Technology (IT) fund for a system; stated the system can\nbe debated after.\nMayor Spencer stated there is a resolution listed and the motion could be to adopt the\nresolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he would do said motion [moved adoption of the\nresolution].\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is open to seconding the motion.\nThe City Manager stated the resolution only addresses the funding, not the vendor.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether Council had a chance to review the resolution that\nCouncilmember Matarrese is referencing; read the title of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Vella clarified the funds are for any technology.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the type of technology used can be debated at a later\ndate.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the technology does not have to be ALPR's.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated funds can be used in a different way.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated he is okay with the suggestions by Councilmember\nMatarrese and seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether someone would like to go over the proposal for the\nnext motion.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of directing the City Manager to issue an\nRFP for vendors and to direct the Police Chief to revise the use policy and contract\nlanguage.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated that he would like to return to Councilmember Matarrese's\noriginal motion and make the direction broader to evaluate and debate different\ntechnologies.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the use of the technologies goes back to the policy\nand standard operating procedures.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated there may be another tool that could be used.\nMayor Spencer stated the RFP would include ALPR's and any other possible data.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the language could read, technology, including, but not\nlimited to, ALPR's.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Police Chief is up to date on current\ntechnology.\nThe City Manager stated language can be added; she would rather have the option of\nan RFP or Request for Qualifications (RFQ).\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the flexibility is acceptable.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether direction is sufficient.\nThe City Manager responded that she would prefer a motion.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would prefer to have a more robust conversation\nbefore an RFP is done.\nThe Police Chief stated more dialogue needs to be done before an RFP or RFQ can be\nput forward.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated there were recurring themes at tonight's City\nCouncil meeting: data storage, security, if the data can be shared with other agencies,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 21, "text": "such as ICE, the length of data retention and the constitutional issue.\nVice Mayor Vella made a substitute motion to approve having more discussion about\nthe policy and giving more direction before the parameters of the RFQ or RFP are done.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Oddie inquired whether the Police Chief would also\nprefer to have more discussion.\nThe Police Chief responded that he can go forward if can be advised of the must haves.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the public should be heard.\nMayor Spencer stated there have been meetings for the past four years.\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft stated the must haves are: specifying what uses of the\nALPR system will not be permitted, such as the apprehension of a wanted persons,\nwhich begs the question, wanted by whom and for what reason; modifying language to\nindicate no cooperation with ICE to identify undocumented individuals and no private\ncompanies; language specifying that APD will not use any hot lists that include\nindividuals that were sought simply because of their immigration status; scheduling a\nreport to the City Council every time an audit report is done; including a provision that\nno information would be provided to ICE solely because of immigration status; language\nthat confirmation of the current status on a hot list for license plates that is otherwise of\ninterest specifying that it is never to assist ICE in immigration services; and more\ninformation about the data center; data retention should be reviewed and language\nshould be added to highlight specifically that APD ALPR information should never be\nshared with ICE in searches related solely to a person's immigration status.\nMayor Spencer inquired whether the policy could include the data not being subject to\npublic information requests.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded the City Attorney's Office and staff have heard\nthe comments from Council and the public; the City Attorney's Office and the Police\nDepartment can work together to prepare an RFP that can be brought back at a future\nCouncil meeting and for public comment and Council review.\nVice Mayor Vella also inquired whether the discussion would include amending the\ncurrent policy that is in place.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella stated there could be other concerns; the list outlined by\nCouncilmember Ezzy Ashcraft is not exhaustive.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 22, "text": "Vice Mayor Vella called the question.\nMayor Spencer requested the motion be repeated, to which the City Clerk repeated\nVice Mayor Vella's motion.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated Vice Mayor Vella could adopt his statement as the\nmotion.\nVice Mayor Vella moved approval of having the City Attorney's office work with\nThe City Manager stated staff would come back with a draft for Council consideration\nbefore it goes out.\nVice Mayor Vella continued the motion of a draft potential RFP or RFQ and a draft\npolicy that would be reviewed by Council prior to its issuance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the motion is similar to the prior motion, but the\nCouncil will be working against what is being prepared by the City Attorney and the\nPolice Chief so Council will not be free forming, which is going against what has been\nprepared off of the comments tonight; seconded the motion.\nVice Mayor Vella stated it is a new motion and new second and she withdraws the\nprevious motion.\nCouncilmember Oddie inquired whether the motion includes some direction to have\nadditional public input other than agendizing the draft RFP to the Council, such as a\ntown hall.\nVice Mayor Vella stated, as part of the process, the matter is going to have to be\nagendized, which means the public will be noticed; there will be another meeting on the\nmatter for the public to come and comment; prior to the meeting, the public could reach\nout to the City Attorney's office, the Police Department and Councilmembers, which she\nwould encourage as part of the transparent process, to add comments or concerns.\nCouncilmember Oddie stated the public should be sure to talk to Councilmembers if\nthey have concerns.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(18-075) The City Manager provided an update on the North Housing Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (MOU).\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nFebruary 6, 2018", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2018-02-06", "page": 23, "text": "(18-076) Janet Gibson, ACT, stated ACT has been advocating for a senior housing with\nprogressive assistance; discussed using developer impact fees for affordable housing\nand rental assistance.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(18-077) Update on Tracking of Council Direction through the Referral Process.\n(18-078) Consider Directing Staff to Provide Information on the Citywide Dockless Bike\nSharing Program and Return to Council with Additional Safety Requirements. Not\nheard. (Mayor Spencer and Vice Mayor Vella)\n(18-079) Consider Banning Motorized Commercial Vehicles, Including Robotic\nCommercial Vehicles, from Sidewalks and Commercial Drone Aircraft Used for\nDeliveries. Not heard. (Councilmember Matarrese)\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(18-080) Councilmember Oddie provided information on StopWaste.org.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Spencer adjourned the meeting at 12:37 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 6, 2018\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2018-02-06.pdf"}