Regular City Council and Housing Authority* - Regular Meeting

OKAY. WE'RE ON THE RECORD. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I NOW CALL TO ORDER THE REGULAR and Housing Authority of Tuesday, July 21st, 2026. Now, normally we have the National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, but tonight we're gonna change things up a little bit. In lieu of the National Anthem, we're gonna play a video that our Costa Mesa TV team, who are award-winning, they made, and it's gonna have the America the Beautiful. We're gonna have the choir, the Voices in Unity America 250 choir that's gonna sing, and what you're gonna see in the video is images of our July 3rd event and a rehearsal before that event of the choir. Then after we do that, and if you want to sing along, you may. The words are on the video. And after that, we're going to do the Pledge of Allegiance. So let's stand for this, if we could. Please stand.

Oh, beautiful for spacious skies, for amber waves of grain, for purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain.

America! America!

God shed his grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood from sea to shining sea.

for a patriot dream that sees beyond the years.

America, America, God shed his grace on thee, and crown thy good with pride.

From sea to shining sea.

Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, now it's time for our moment of solemn expression led by Pastor Phil Eiskins from the Lighthouse Church. So please, our friend Pastor Phil, you have the floor.

You know what a privilege it is to be here tonight, Mayor Stevens and esteemed city council. You know, I don't consider myself just to be the average member of clergy in this community. I stand here knowing that with the city and with our church that we are striving to meet the needs of every citizen. in this community and even the unhoused. I need to report to you the success of what we do. We currently have 10 individuals residing at the lighthouse which the city approved years ago with a conditional use permit. Frank is working full time at Home Depot, came off the streets of Costa Mesa. We have Arturo who has just recently got a full time job with the bridge shelter who came off the streets of Costa Mesa. And then we have Clint, who was running a muck in Costa Mesa, who now has his own place and is working for a class company right here in Costa Mesa. So we share in the successes of working together, the church and the city. And I appreciate that. And God, we trust. I also want to thank the city, I believe, Mayor Stevens, for continuing to support Terry Moore in his efforts to continue to have a volunteer community service team, which the Lighthouse is now collaborating with him to try to get some of these projects going. And several of our gatekeepers have been part of that. So I appreciate that so much. Also, a gentleman by the name of Annie Rickenbacker, he was a World War I recipient of the Medal of Honor. Later, he pioneered air transportation in our country. He said this, I pray to God every night of my life to be given the strength and power to continue my efforts to inspire in others the interests, the obligation, and the responsibilities that we owe to this land for the sake of future generations so that we can always look back When the candle of life burns low and say, thank God, I have contributed my best to the land that contributed so much to me. Can we pray? Dearly Father, we come to you tonight in the name of your son. Father, so mindful of the benefits of such a great land as the United States. Lord, we thank you for everything. We thank you for the fire department, the police department. We pray you'd continue to put a hedge of safety around them and this great city council that is working hard to meet the needs of the community around us. So, Lord, bless this place. Bless everything that's said and done tonight. And, Father, we say all of this in the name of your son. Amen.

Thank you, Pastor Phil. So now is the time to do the roll call. So Madam Clerk, would you please do the honors?

Mr. Mayor, the record will reflect that all council is present.

Thank you. And the city attorney, do we have a closed session report?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Direction was given on all items in closed session.

Okay, well, we're going to get to the presentations in a minute, but I have some big news to share. The city is providing, and you might probably see it on the screens, a new translation service in the city council chambers. If you look at the center monitors on each side of the room, you'll see live closed captioning. The monitors on the left side, which is my right, your left, captions are in Spanish, while the monitors on the right side provide English closed captioning. The QR code will also be available throughout the chambers, allowing attendees to access translations on their mobile devices. THROUGH THE QR CODE, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN CHOOSE FROM ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE OPTIONS OTHER THAN JUST SPANISH FOR THE TRANSLATION. WE HOPE THAT THESE NEW TRANSLATION SERVICES MAKE THE COUNCIL MEETINGS MORE ACCESSIBLE AND ENJOYABLE TO EVERYONE AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO THE CITY CLERK TEAM WHO HAS BEEN ADVOCATING THIS FOR A LONG TIME AND OUR TV team who gets two shout outs already and we haven't even gotten to the presentation So they're a great award-winning team. But now without further ado, we're getting to the presentations. We're going to talk about baseball Little League baseball. Can I hear it? We have two remarkable teams to talk about. Interesting coincidence between the coaches, their buddies and neighbors and stuff like that. And so it's a great Costa Mesa story. So both teams are champions in the, well, wait a minute. They're not both champions in the district tournament of champions. You guys won the All-Star. Yeah, got it, okay. Okay, but first we're gonna talk about the Brewers, the Brew Crew. The Minor B Brewers had an unforgettable season in 2026 and their remarkable achievement as champions of the District 62 Terminative Champions. This team demonstrated incredible persistence and perseverance throughout the season. They started the year with a 2-8 record. They have a great coach. I talked to him. And they refused to give up, this team, these boys, finishing the season on a 13-2 run. You can clap. Get this. Their final nine-game winning streak included an unforgivable, and for the team that lost, unforgivable, 7-6 victory in the ninth inning. That's extra innings to capture... COAST TO MESA LITTLE LEAGUE CHAMPIONSHIP BEFORE CONTINUING THEIR MOMENTUM TO THE DISTRICT 62 TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS. WHAT THE TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS DOES FOR PEOPLE THAT AREN'T IN LITTLE LEAGUE, IT TAKES THE REGULAR SEASON WINNERS, SO THIS IS A REGULAR SEASON TEAM THAT HAVE BEEN TOGETHER SINCE BEFORE OPENING DAY AND THEY PLAY AGAINST ALL THE OTHER REGULAR SEASON WINNERS FOR THE DISTRICT, IN THIS CASE DISTRICT primarily against Huntington Beach teams, but also Fountain Valley, and I think maybe some kids from Westminster. During the tournament, the Brewers outscored their opponents by an incredible 39 to 13. Yep. Earning the District 62 championship and becoming the fifth Costa Mesa team since 2002. Only the fifth since 2002. That's 24 years to win a District 62 minor B title and only the second team since the league merged leagues merged in 2021. Your determination, resilience, teamwork, persistence, sportsmanship are a testament to what can be accomplished through hard work and believing in one another. We're really proud of you. Your city is proud of you, and the council is proud of you, and certainly your mayor. So at this time, I'd like to call up their coach, Josh Ryan, and he's going to provide a few remarks and pass out the certificates.

That's a tough act to follow Thank You mayor Stevens and esteemed council members we greatly appreciate this opportunity We're honored. I'm a little choked up I'm passionate about you sports and the development of our youth my wife and I left Newport and Corona Del Mar respectively 14 years ago to start our family in hail crest and Costa Mesa And we wouldn't want to do it anywhere else It's awesome to share it with Ryan West, who coached our superstars team. He happens to be one of my best friends and my next door neighbor, which is crazy. Literally right next door to each other. I'd be remiss if I didn't thank the entire city, our police department, our first responders, all of our. fire department and everybody that volunteers to make our youth be able to participate in these sporting events. I think without this the development could go sideways and so I'm just really proud of this team. It is a testament to when a team comes together and you encourage them in a positive way great things can happen. And that's probably no different than in politics. If we can spend our time focusing on the positivity and doing great things for one another, I guarantee you will be successful. So thank you for this honor. Congratulations to the Brew Crew. Congratulations to our Costa Mesa superstar, Zach and Teresa, and to all of our board members. Thank you for everything you do for U Sports and Costa Mesa and beyond. We're greatly appreciative. And thank you again for this opportunity.

You get to call him up.

Okay. So who we got here? Jeffrey Wagner. Oh, it does? Okay. Oh, and by the way, one of our assistant coaches was Lieutenant Matt Grimmon. He just retired from the city of Costa Mesa Police Department. He can't be here today. Great guy. We appreciate everybody immensely. It was an honor to be able to work with him. Joshua Ryan, this would be me, so I'm not going to hand that out to myself. Reagan's not here. Reed Orris not here. Steve Cochran, not here. Not here. Max Murphy. Elliot Ogden. Evan White. And to his dad, Coach Mike White, who's our assistant to coach. He got ball and told. Thank you for all that you did for these kids this year. Jeffrey Wagner. Roman, not here, Roman Sanchez, I'll just call their names in case. Levitt Ryan, my son. James Riley, big game James. Colby. He's the one kid that didn't smile, so we got him to smile as a big accomplishment for this year. Maverick Manning, not here, great kid, coached him the last few years. River. Mr. Jack Donath. Damian Cortez. Wesley's not here, Wesley Anderson, and then Dean Berkley. Again, thank you, esteemed council members, Mayor Stevens, and to all of our first responders and everybody in Costa Mesa that makes this possible. We appreciate you immensely. Thank you.

Thank you, Josh. Okay, you guys stay there. Okay, stay there. We'll call you up for a photo in a bit. But now we're going to talk about the superstars. Now, the coach will say, but the superstars, is it eight, nine? What's that, Al? Eight and nine. Eight and nine years old? Yeah. Okay. All-star team. Okay. Opened their all-star tournament in dominant fashion, winning the first three games, outscoring their opponents 19 to 1. And then they had one loss, and they responded with determination, defeating a Huntington Valley team, the dreaded Huntington Valley Little League, 3-1 to bring home the title. Thank you very much for doing that. With this victory, the 2026 Superstars became just the second Coast Mesa Little League Superstars team to win the district championship since the tournament began in 2017. Their championship also marks Costa Mesa Little League's eighth all-star title in the past five years, reflecting the strength and continued success of the league's youth baseball program, which is amazing. I think you had the presidents here. You had, what, like 668 kids this year or something like that? Yeah. About that? Yeah. Amazing. I mean, it's twice the size as when I coached back in the Stone Age. Okay, so what makes this accomplishment even more amazing is both these championship teams come from the youngest tournament divisions in Costa Mesa Little League and their continued success speaks for a bright future. So we're expecting more championships from all you players in the future in the baseball community. At this time, if Ryan Wist would come up and say a few words and give out his certificate. Thank you.

Coach Ryan, you have the floor. Thank you. Talk about a tough act to follow, JR. I'm voting for you, pal. When are you going to be on the ballot? Watch out, you guys. Thank you so much. Mayor Stevens and everybody up here, thanks for the invitation. We couldn't be more honored. As JR said, what an amazing accomplishment from both teams. It's an absolute honor for all of us to be here. I couldn't be more proud of this group of boys, the challenge that they faced. They came together like brothers right away. Immediately, first practice, we knew we had something special with this group of kids. It really is the testament to the families. I think that both sides, the Brewers, which I know a lot of you guys, and the Superstars families, the coaches can't do it. There's no way we could accomplish what we accomplished without this group of families. Like we felt like a family, you know, from day one. And I think, you know, it takes, it takes a village, it takes a city, you know, to, to bring, you know, a group of 12, nine-year-olds, as you guys can imagine together for one goal and one purpose and to have fun too. And I think that that was the key for us is that it wasn't always about winning, you know, coach West, you know, wants to win, but, It was about them having fun and getting better and coming together as a group. So the families, all you guys, thank you so much for everything you sacrificed to put into this team. Super proud of everybody that was involved. Again, JR, you absolutely nailed it. First responders, we appreciate everything that you did. bring to this community. Um, you know, we're neighbors. We love our, our, our neighborhood and our community and, you know, and use sports. And so we're, we're here to stay and Hey, we want to be back next year. Uh, mayor Stevens. So we're looking, you know, we're, we're going to do our best to make that happen. So thank you very much. Uh, first one, our, our assistant, one of our assistant coaches, Casey Westfeld, appreciate you. Uh, Hey, the assistant coach just had to wrangle me in because I'm sometimes like a panther. P.J. McCaig, other assistant coach that can't be here today, out of town. Myself. All right, first one up, Kipton. Kipton Westfield. Out of the way. Lewis Wist. Mason Wilson. Julian Washington. Nixon McCaig. Elias Arquez. Isaac Hernandez is in Hawaii today. Brody Gutierrez. Braden Gardner. Kenny Feather, K-5. Solomon Brown. Last but not least, Case Boyer. Hey, thanks again. Appreciate you guys having us here.

Thanks. Okay, so we're going to take photos now. By the way, you guys are good hustlers. I saw you running up to get your certificates. That's why you win. Keep hustling. Okay, so we're going to do photos with the council. Board members are welcome to come in. You deserve it. We'll do the brew crew first, then we'll do the superstars, then we'll get together. Brew crew first.

um Thank you. Thank you.

Don't mess it up.

Gladys. Gladys. Are you ready? Thank you. You guys are famous. Yeah.

Thank you.

Where'd he go? Where'd he go?

I'll push out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, people are going to start, keep coming in, so just don't, just everybody, you know, they'll file in, I'm sure, respectfully. Let's get going, though, on our public comments. Before we start tonight's public comments, I just want to take a moment to address one thing. That's our ROCS program, just in case some of you were here to talk about that. Earlier this year, the staff evaluated the program as part of our ONGOING BUDGET DISCUSSIONS. ROCKS CURRENTLY OPERATES AT NINE SCHOOLS, THREE LOCATIONS. THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE. I'M GOING TO SKIP SOME OF IT. WE WERE GOING TO CUT IT DOWN, BUT AFTER FURTHER REVIEW, THE STAFF LEARNED THAT that the alternative programs we were considering were not available, and so we reversed our decision. We've determined that the ROCS program will continue to operate at all nine school sites, just as it did before. Registration began today and is available online. Thank you to all the community members who brought this to our attention so we could fix the issue. And, you know, you're welcome to talk about it if you wish at public comment. But we've addressed that issue before tonight. So with that. Oh, by the way, three minutes. You get three minutes. When you have one minute left, you're going to hear a sound. You're going to see a light. The difference tonight, there's a lot of little differences. Normally, if you're speaking in Spanish translations, you get five minutes. FROM NOW ON IT IS SIX MINUTES. IF YOU SPEAK SPANISH TRANSLATION YOU GET SIX MINUTES AND ENGLISH YOU GET THE THREE MINUTES. AFTER THE THREE MINUTES YOUR MIC IS CUT OFF. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT IS ON THE AGENDA. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE FLOCK ISSUE OR OUR ISSUE ABOUT THE BALLOT INITIATIVE WHICH IS OUR SECOND ITEM WE WILL TAKE UP AFTER WE DISCUSS THE FLOCK ISSUE. WITH THAT, FLO, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

Thank you. Flo Martin, 59-year resident of Costa Mesa. For the last few years, I have been filing a public records request to get the number of car collisions, both driver to driver and driver to pedestrian and driver to cyclist. As a longtime member of the Active Transportation Committee, Public safety on our streets has been my primary focus. I applaud Public Works. Because of Public Works' effort to make our streets safer for pedestrians and cyclists and drivers, our crash incidents have dropped drastically. In the last few years, it was up to 200 or 300 crashes a month. This month, this last month of June, it was down to some 35 or 40. So public works is making Costa Mesa safer for us all. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Thank you. Great job.

Hello, my name is Larry Jones. This is my wife, Laura. I've lived in Costa Mesa for 72 years. My parents moved here in 1949. I attended three of the community workshops. My understanding is the state of California is requiring Costa Mesa to plan for more than 12,000 dwelling units. That puts about 24,000 more vehicles on the road. My concerns, traffic, Costa Mesa roads are already struggling to meet current needs. Large new developments, including those proposed for Fairview State Hospital, Trinity Broadcasting Site would place additional pressure on the majority roads throughout the city. Adding traffic volume, more housing would bring more cars. Delivery vehicles, service vehicles, trash vehicles, and construction vehicles. Public safety. Traffic laws are frequently ignored, including blocking intersections, running red lights, and stop signs. The use of side streets as speedways. Unlicensed e-bike riders often lack knowledge of road rules while law enforcement is stretched too thin. Road diets for bikes. There are many more vehicles than bikes. Who pays the road taxes? Parking, side streets are always filled up with cars. And double parking is becoming a common occurrence. ADUs not required to provide any parking. New rules to allow four dwellings on a single family dwelling, single family lot. Our current streets can't accommodate the vehicles already here. Business climates, 746 West 17th Street. 15 units approximately 45 employees told by the owner of the property to vacate by February 2027 to make the way for more dwelling units. Most are trying and failing to find affordable rentals in the city of Costa Mesa for their businesses. Utilities. Do we have enough? Example, water, electric, sewers. The quality of life is being ruined for existing residents. Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

I WAS WALKING OVER FROM THE OVERFLOW ROOM WHEN YOU WERE MAKING YOUR STATEMENT ON ROCKS, SO I'M SORRY IF YOU COVERED ANYTHING THAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY. SO I AM A COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT TWO, I'M SORRY, PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICE COMMISSIONER FOR DISTRICT TWO, AND I WORK AT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN DISTRICT TWO THAT WAS ONE OF THE SCHOOLS AFFECTED ORIGINALLY. I am very in touch with the parents there. So I was bombarded Thursday morning with texts and calls from frantic parents. I jumped on my city email and had no communication that it was canceled. Didn't know what was going on. Checked with Chair Brown, thinking maybe they communicated with her. No communication to her either. Contacted Council Member Gamaros to see if he knew what was going on. He didn't know. I contacted board members. They didn't know. I had... like 12 hours where i couldn't tell these parents that were upset anything because nobody knew and that is just a failure on so many levels um since the parks department oversees the rocks program the commission should have been a part of the discussion the council should have been part of the discussion and that is all i'm just here that hope this never happens again, and to thank those of you that saved it.

Thanks.

Yes.

Hi. So I work at the Hilton in Costa Mesa, and I just want to talk about the safety issues going on in the hotel. I've been there for four years, and I plead that one of you guys go visit us, the workers, not just management. They do pay taxpayer dollars. But there's a lot of safety hazards. The laundry room gets overheated. The temperature is above 102 degrees while they have the dryers running, the irons running, while they're folding and cleaning the towels. This dishwasher machine broke, and it leaks everywhere, overflowing. The employee parking lot has a leak, and management is not getting that fixed. And us members workers, most of us are afraid to say something because of retaliation. So I plead you guys as city council members and the mayor to go visit the hotel and not just the front end of the hotel, but the back house of the hotel because it is affecting the workers' safety. There's a lot of leaks going on, not just when it rains, but in the back office, in the GM's office, but they're never going to do anything about it. They don't worry about their employees, and I just ask for the city of Costa Mesa to care about us. Thank you.

Thank you. Christian. Christian.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name is Cristian Garcia-Argos. I am Commissioner for Parks and Community Services for District 4. I had the privilege to speak with Bethany, who is one of the founders for Creek Team. And we had a meeting with our Mayor Pro Tem, and we were discussing about some issues that are, you know, state level, county level, and they're fighting this beautiful battle, and I'm going to let the other Creek team kind of speak more on, you know, the details on that, but I just want to encourage you to listen with an open heart. This is an issue that has been going on for many, many years, decades, if not, and it's been something that's been affecting, is affecting, and will be affecting our And so they have found carcinogen and just like a lot of a lot of things that will cause cancer and our waters are being destroyed. And so the habitat is. needs to be preserved. They have had some success. And again, I'm really excited for them to share all about it. And I just want to bring this up before they came up. I wasn't prepared to come up. So there it is. Yeah. Good luck. Thank you. Have a great day.

Mayor Stephens, esteemed council members, thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Kobi Soberpena. This is my teammate, Michael Rio. I am a recent graduate from Cal State Fullerton, and I'm here on tonight of the Creek Team, a grassroots organization committed to bettering our community. Right now, we are focused on one thing, stopping the overuse of hundreds and thousands of gallons of pesticides used across our county. This matters because Orange County is home to many endangered species. The Santa Ana River is a federally protected critical habitat for these species, and the greatest threat to them is habitat destruction. When we damage the habitat, we lose the species that depend on it. Not only this, but the use of these pesticides also leak into the oceans and can harm people residing in the water. We don't believe that has to be the main trade-off. We believe habitat restoration and flood management can coexist. We can protect these waterways and still keep our community safe. There's also an opportunity here. When a city restores its waterways, it opens the door to waterfront businesses, restaurants, and green spaces. So the restoration isn't only an environmental win, it can also be an economic one as well. That's why we're asking for our city support in exploring pathways towards our common goal. And our team does not come empty-handed as well. Creek Team has spent months requesting and reviewing public records. What we have found is that policies have been broken. State agencies already have open violation cases against Orange County Public Works. That includes the, excuse me, that includes the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Water State Resources Control Board. We're not here to point fingers. We're here because we know there's a path towards a better future, and we want to walk it with you. We're asking our city to work with us and to move in the right direction. Thank you.

Hello Council, my name is Michael Rio. Thank you for letting the Creek team present tonight. I'm a lifelong resident here who works on the water. I was just surfing this morning. That's why I found it so important to be part of this cause. We just want to open the dialogue with Costa Mesa City on the betterment of our waterways. There's so many better options than spraying of toxic chemicals in the creeks to take proper care of them. We hope to see the native plants and animals return to these creeks the way it should be, and we want your support in making that happen. San Juan and Laguna cities shouldn't be the only ones leading this effort for our great county. Again, we appreciate the chance to speak on this and look forward to working towards a better future for our waterways with you guys.

ALL RIGHT. NOBODY ON ZOOM? OKAY. OKAY. THERE'S NOBODY ON ZOOM SO WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO COUNCILMEMBER COMMITTEE REPORTS COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE UP IS FROM DISTRICT 3, COUNCILMEMBER ANDREA MARR.

I'm going to hold my comments for tonight. We've got a long meeting. Thank you.

Thanks. Okay, next up is from District 5, Council Member Arliss Reynolds.

Thanks for everyone who spoke. Thanks, Mrs. Martin, for your comments on safe streets. I agree with you that I'm very, very proud of the work that we're doing, very, very proud of our public works department. And it's wonderful to be able to see the outcome of the safe street work in terms of real data and reductions and collisions and injuries in our city. So thank you for calling that out. Just very quickly on rocks. You know there's been a lot of conversations in the last couple days and definitely discussions about process of decision making and communication to make sure we avoid that kind of 48-hour craziness going forward Creek team folks. Thank you. I've actually engaged with some of your members on behalf of the Sierra Club and My understanding is what you're working on is outside of the jurisdiction of the city But I would welcome bringing a resolution to the city that we could support since the Santa Ana River is along our border An update for council in the public We did complete the work of the Randall preserve Advisory Committee I was a representative on that committee for the city of Costa Mesa staff submitted a letter to Represent our goals and our concerns about the planning process the Advisory Committee just last week made a final recommendation on the plans for that preserve. And we're still about a year away from public access, but it's very exciting to reach that milestone. Maybe I'll send some info to the city to share to the public. One part of the next phase of planning process will be continued engagement with, between MRCA, Coastal Corridor Alliance, kind of the stewards of land and our police department, our fire, of course, and public works. because we do want to make sure we have a really solid plan for safety, of course, but also circulation when that park opens. We're also nearing the 10-year anniversary of saving that park to be a preserve for the public. One other quick announcement, I think we have a flyer showing Custom Mesa Lands for Better Streets is hosting their first ever bike repair event this Sunday at Donald Dungan Library. So this is an opportunity if you have a bike that's been in the garage for 10 years or something happened recently, Didn't make it to the fair opening on Friday because I had a bike incident I couldn't fix bring your bike down meet some biking folks They'll do a free tune-up for you. Give you some advice on bike maintenance It's gonna be a great event and it's totally free Thank you Thank you next we go to district 6 councilmember Jeff Pettis I

Thank you, Mayor Stevens. Welcome to the public. And hey, listen, so we have the East Side Exchange, which is my quarterly pop-up. Several weeks ago now, we've been off for a little while. It was at the Jordan Park. And you know what? At first, I'm like, does anybody care about these things or anybody watch? And it turns out they do. I had a visitor from a gentleman named Jeff Holt with a project project. Independence group which is a special needs and developmental disabilities group they help People in that community get out and live independently and he had heard about my pop-up on on the previous council meeting showed up and And told me about what he's what they're up to and their their annual walk they do which I'm going to be showing up to so I thought that was I thought that was great. I appreciate meeting Jeff that afternoon and And we went to the July 3rd celebration for the city, 16,000 Costa Mesa residents, maybe not just Costa Mesa residents, but there was a record number of people there, and I was proud to be a part of it. Thank you to police, it was their orderly event, lots of fun, and I'll be doing that annually going forward for sure. And also getting a chance to open up the OC Fair, which I've been going to since I was a little kid. Got to see a flyover, so that was very, very cool to be a part of. And lastly, this Thursday at 6 p.m. at the Norma Herzog Center, we have the Fairview Developmental Center Town Hall, which is actually a town hall where the public will have an opportunity to get up and speak their mind, good, bad, indifferent. Please show up 6 p.m. Thursday, Norma Herzog. Thank you.

Thank you. Next is from District 1, Councilmember Mike Buehle.

Thank you, Mayor, Council, members of the public. I'll be brief, too, but just want to give a shout-out and acknowledge all the great work, Parks and Services, kind of piggybacking on Councilmember Pettis, July 3rd event. I was out there last year. It seemed like it was about a third bigger, maybe twice as big this year, and it seemed like last year a few stragglers got out there early to save their spots, and by the time the band started playing and the fireworks were getting going, the parking lot was full. This year, it was full from the very beginning. And then we got to open up the fair. I encourage everybody to get out and spend their money locally out there at the OC fair. And that's a good deal. And we'd be remiss. I know Mayor Stevens commented on Tijuana Dogs playing tonight at Concerts in the Park. I was out there last week for the Sega Genocide band that was playing, kind of an 80s, 90s rock band. But it's one of the great things about living here in Costa Mesa. We've got all these great summer community events and you get thousands of members of the public all out there and mingling and enjoying enjoying the city so thank you parks and and all the community and police and fire and everybody who makes all these events happen thank you council member next up from district two is council member lauren gameros thank you mr mayor i'm going to be brief this evening as well um i do want to take a moment though and um i want to recognize the fact that uh

I did reach out to the director of Parks and Rec, Brian Gruner, regarding flock when all this went down. And I just wanna say I have the utmost respect for him. When I spoke with him, he did actually say, you know what, I'm gonna take a moment right now and I'm gonna reevaluate our decision. And he actually made the decision to fix it. And I think that says a lot for him, not only for him, but his staff. And if you wanna look at the man behind all of the events that are taking place. Director Gruner has overseen the July 3rd event, which we filled up, and all the concerts in the park. So I just want to take a moment and recognize Park and Rec for the outstanding job and the fact that they are willing to do what it takes. So thank you, Parks and Rec, and thank you, Director Gruner. Moving on from there, I also want to say it's hot out there right now. We have cooling stations in the city of Costa Mesa. If you're unaware of where to go, get on our website. If you're having an emergency, you can go to any fire station, but the Senior Center is a great place to cool off. And if you're not sure where to go, don't hesitate to reach out to public safety in any way that you can because no one wants to die of heat stroke, and heat incapacitation can come in many different ways. Other than that, Mr. Mayor, that's all I have. Thanks.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER. THEN WE HAVE FROM DISTRICT FOUR, MAYOR PROTEM, MANUEL CHAVEZ.

THANK YOU, MAYOR STEPHENS. NO COMMENTS TODAY. THANK YOU FOR JOINING US AND THANKS TO THE CREEK TEAM FOR GIVING THE COMMENT.

YEAH. For me, I'm going to be really brief. I do want to follow up on the folks from Unite Here, or the woman from Unite Here, who talked about the issues with the Hilton. So I will be following up on that. I'd like the staff to work with me on that. And thank you for everybody who spoke. The July 3rd event, yeah, was beyond my wildest expectations. Thank you to the Parks Department and led by Director Gruner. Terrific job. Thanks to the PD. The PD does a wonderful job there. They're perfect. They show a presence. They keep people safe. But it doesn't seem like it's a police event. Thank you to the Firefighters Association for the hot dogs. Thank you to... NEWPORT RIB COMPANY FOR THE RIBS AND THE RIB EATING CONTEST. FLASHBACK HEART ATTACK WAS GREAT AND THE CITY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT AS WELL FOR HELPING TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. IT REALLY IS A BIG COMMUNITY CELEBRATION AND I'M REALLY GLAD TO BE A PART OF IT AND I HOPE IT CONTINUES. REGARDING A COUPLE OF THINGS, In terms of my absence, I'm usually here, but on August 3rd, I'm going to be remote from the continent of Africa. So the mayor pro tem is going to run the meeting. He'll do an awesome job. And with respect to the Thursday night town hall, I would have really wanted to go to that. However, I have a work commitment. I have to be out of town at that time too. So I'll make sure to get downloaded on all that information at the town hall. Thank you for staff for doing that. That's all I have. Now we're going to hear from our city manager, Cecilia Gallardo-Dailey.

I have no report out tonight. Thank you. All right.

Good. Excellent. City Attorney, Ms. Hall-Barlow.

I'm going to say ditto.

Ditto. Okay. So consent calendar is next. All items on the consent calendar will be made in one motion. They're considered to be routine. Some items can be pulled by the staff, by the city council, or by the public. Madam Clerk, has anybody pulled anything?

No, Mr. Mayor.

Okay, and then Councilmember Guimaraes, do you need to be recused from? Okay, he needs to be recused from the warrant resolutions because his wife used to work for Priceless Pets. Okay, with that, can we get a motion?

I'll move consent.

Okay, Councilmember Reynolds is moving the consent calendar. Mayor Pro Tem Chavez seconds. Let's call for the question.

Mayor Pro Tem, please. Motion carries 7-0.

OK. Now we're going to move on to our two, we have two items. They're both new business items. With respect to the next new business item, it's a matter of great interest and passion in the community. And so I appreciate that. I'm anxious to hear what everybody has to say. Just laying down a few ground rules. Make sure, don't disrupt anybody. You'll all get an opportunity to speak. You know, you all get three minutes if you wish to take it. We're here to listen, but please don't disrupt everybody. And then pertaining to signs, I know some of you have signs. That's perfectly fine. It's just don't obstruct anybody's view with the signs. You know, we're not going to take out a measuring tape or anything like that to see how big they are, as long as you're not disrupting people's views. So if everybody is respectful tonight, we're going to have a very interesting meeting on a very interesting topic of, uh, of interest in our community. So I look forward to it. So with that, um, uh, madam clerk, could you please read the title?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is the flock safety, automated license plate reader report and presentation. presentation by Chief Lapointe and Lieutenant Barnes.

All right. Okay, team, you have the floor.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and members of the council, and members of our community. I'm very appreciative of the opportunity to speak on a very important topic tonight. Tonight, we are here to discuss the Costa Mesa Police Department's use of the Flock automated license plate reader technology, and to address the questions and concerns many of our community members have had and raised over the last few months. As your police chief, and as someone who has been a part of this community for more than 30 years, I have the responsibility to ensure that every tool that we use is lawful, effective, transparent, and consistent with the values of our Costa Mesa community. As your police department, we are responsible to protect our community while respecting the rights, the privacy, and the constitutional protections to every person who lives, works, and visits our city. Those are not competing priorities. Those are responsibilities that we take very seriously and that we are committed to achieving together with our community. I understand the concerns surrounding this technology. I've had many conversations with community members and also been listening intently at council meetings. I understand that there are questions about privacy, government surveillance, data collection, who has access to this information, how long it will be retained, and whether law-abiding community members are being monitored. These are all reasonable questions. Every access must have a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and misuse is not tolerated. Maintaining the public trust is very important to us as a police department. Every decision made to implement new technology begins with one question. Will this help us protect our community? If it cannot be implemented responsibly, we do not move forward. If it weighs, if it helps to protect victims, solve crimes, and preserve public trust, we have the responsibility to consider it.

Proceed.

The Costa Mesa Police Department's mission has never changed. We are here to protect our community. We are here to support victims. We are here to hold offenders accountable and preserve the rights and quality of life that makes Costa Mesa such a wonderful place to live, play, and work. To present today, I brought in three members of my leadership team to discuss and clarify and hopefully give a better understanding to our community on how the flock safety license plate reader system works. I will now turn it over to Captain Diaz for the presentation.

Thank you, Chief. Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Captain Carlos Diaz, and I oversee our Field Operations Division of the Costa Mesa Police Department. Sitting with me today is Lieutenant Jared Barnes, who currently oversees our Flock Administration, and recently promoted Lieutenant Jake Jacoby, whose last assignment was with the Investigative Services Bureau. I'd like to provide you with an overview of what we're going to be speaking about tonight, a background of flock safety, what the flock cameras actually do, the benefits of flock and the benefits to our community, governance and policy. For background context, the Costa Mesa Police Department is committed to the council's goals of strengthening public safety and improve the quality of life. We are going to be addressing some community concerns regarding data sharing and other concerns that the Chief of Police shared. and security incidents that have occurred. Costa Mesa Police Department has used different forms of automated license plate reader technology for over the last 15 years. It began using the flock safety license plate reader services in April of 2022. When the first contract came out back in 2022, we started out with 31 cameras at fixed points along major roadways throughout the city of Costa Mesa. In 2024, or February of 2024, pardon me, it expanded to 46 cameras, which were funded by our organized retail theft grant that was granted by the state of California. Currently, the contract is set to expire in April of 2027, and currently, the total expenses for the flock camera system is $151,800. I want to go over what flock cameras do. is divided into two portions of it. It's what Flock does and what it doesn't do. One, it takes photos of rears of vehicles capturing license plates and vehicle attributes on public roadways. What it doesn't do, it doesn't sell customer data to third parties. It does check all license plates against existing law enforcement databases for stolen vehicles and wanted individuals, including missing persons. What it doesn't do, it does not allow data to be shared outside of California with federal agencies.

Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me. No. We're not going to do that. We're not going to do that. Who? Okay. People will be removed if they disrupt. Go.

Flock does notify communications and our patrol officers within 30 seconds of any detected hit from the state. It does not use facial recognition. Flock does provide evidence to help solve crimes that occur, but it does not capture names or personal information of motorists. Flock helps prevent future crimes from occurring, and it does not intentionally photograph drivers or occupants. It does place cameras at the intersections of major roadways, but it does not place cameras in parks or any city facilities.

Next slide, please.

I'd like to now switch it over to Terran Barnes, who will talk about our transport transparency portal.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, council and city staff. I'm Lieutenant Barnes, and I've been a field operations lieutenant for about the last year now. I've been the primary FLOC administrator for our field operations division for our department during that time. For the next part of the presentation, I'm going to talk about how we use FLOC, the policy with FLOC, and kind of the day-to-day operations. specific to Costa Mesa's flock use. The first thing I want to do is point out is our transparency portal. This is something required by SB 34. What you see on the screen right now is a photograph of the transparency portal on the city's website. SOME OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS TRANSPARENCY PORTAL IS THE LOCATION OF ALL OF OUR CAMERAS AND IT ALSO INCLUDES OUR DEPARTMENT POLICY REGARDING FLOCK USE THAT WE OPERATE UNDER. THERE'S A LINK ON THAT TRANSPARENCY PORTAL WITH THE TRANSPARENCY PORTAL ON FLOCK AS IT PERTAINS TO THE CITY OF and what is contained in this transparency portal and again what Costa Mesa's flock technology and program is capable of. Our program is currently just set up with fixed automated license plate reader cameras that are primarily set up to catch the rear portion of the vehicle to capture their license plate. These cameras are not configured for facial recognition and not specifically looking for people specifically gender or race either. Our acceptable use policy also governed by our internal policy and SB 34. This data is for law enforcement purposes only. This data is owned by Costa Mesa PD and is not sold to third parties either. It highlights prohibited uses that the data captured from our flock cameras here in Costa Mesa are not used for immigration enforcement, traffic enforcement, harassment, intimidation. Our data retention is 365 days. We currently have 46 cameras. And then there's a list of networks that we are currently sharing with. This is a photograph of the typical image that the flock cameras are capturing. We've purposely set up all the cameras to capture Primarily the rear vehicles because that's where the license plates are or at least where they're supposed to be But this is a typical image that we're capturing from all of our All of our cameras. It's not focused on the driver. It's focused on the vehicle vehicle characteristics and Flock technology is used to deliver real-time intelligence, and that's where the power and the benefit of Flock really is seen. This is not a novel technology. It's used nationwide, currently by well over 5,000 law enforcement agencies and over 1,000 private businesses. Statewide in California, there's currently over 400 law enforcement agencies Orange County alone, there's 21 law enforcement agencies that are using it. It's almost every city, except for I believe it's two of the smallest cities in the county. All of our partner and local agencies are using Flock. And then locally, Here in the city of Costa Mesa, we have our PD that's using it. It's important to highlight some of the private partnerships we have with businesses that believe and see the value in flock. One of those being South Coast Plaza that's invested in their own flock cameras. Another private business is Home Depot. And then there's even HOA that see the value of having flock cameras. And there's an HOA in Costa Mesa that's invested in their own camera. I want to highlight some public safety benefits that we've realized here in Costa Mesa since the implementation of flock about four years ago now. looking at this table starting in 2023 and then moving forward this is primarily focused on stolen vehicles and we can see as over the last several years the number of detections and recoveries and subsequent arrests is actually trending down and it's our belief that this is showing the success and benefits of flock because not only Costa Mesa, but all the surrounding agencies have it. Um, it's, it's, CREATING A DECREASE IN CRIME, PARTICULARLY IN THE STOLEN VEHICLES. CAN SEE THE VALUE IN JUST RECOVERED PROPERTY, JUST RECOVERED STOLEN CARS IS OVER $3 MILLION, WELL IN EXCESS OF ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY WE'VE SPENT ON THE SYSTEM. Here's some additional data from the last 12 months, July 2025 to July 2026. FLOC is directly responsible for over 100 significant cases. And you can see a list of the types of cases where we've used FLOC. Some of its theft cases, including stolen vehicles, theft, burglary. And then there's some significant cases that we categorize as crimes against people. And there's some fairly significant cases on here. Assault with deadly weapons, robberies, sexual assault, attempt homicide, and even homicides. And it's... Easy to look at this as a number, but without Flock, these cases would not have been solved as quickly as they were solved, and it's potential that we may not have solved them. These are all cases where vehicles are involved, and Flock gives us the ability to... bring closure and justice for the victims of these crimes. These aren't just numbers. These are people in our city. And I'm going to turn it over briefly to Lieutenant Jacoby. He spent the last few years as one of our supervisors in our investigations, and he's going to provide a couple specific examples of how FLOC has been used.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Proton, City Council members. I'd just like to share a few cases from the past year that show how flock cameras have helped our officers and detectives solve some very important cases. The first case involves a homicide investigation. Late last year, a purser was murdered while leaving a local care facility. At the beginning of the investigation, the detectives had very little information to work with. They believed the suspect had left either in a black sedan or on a black motorcycle. Detectives quickly identified the black sedan and were able to interview that driver who was in fact an actual witness to the crime. The witness obviously pointed out that the suspect did flee on a black motorcycle, which was super important. So we were able to focus our investigation at that point on that black motorcycle. Our detectives used our flock cameras to to try to locate that motorcycle and get a license plate. Flock captured two images that night. One image came from our cameras in our city, but the license plate was unreadable. The second image was captured by a neighboring agency's flock cameras. That image was a partial plate, but it was something to work off of. Detectives combined that information with the investigative resources and quickly identified the suspect. Within 24 hours of identifying the suspect and that suspect vehicle, detectives took him into custody. The quick response prevented him from fleeing the country and allowed the investigators to recover the murder weapon and other key pieces of evidence for that case. I can honestly sit here and say without those flock images, the investigation wouldn't have been significantly more difficult and may have remained unsolved for a much longer period of time. This was huge because we were able to give the family closure immediately. The next case I'd like to talk about was a critical missing adult. Earlier this year, officers responded to a report of a critical missing adult who suffered from dementia. The family believed he had been missing for several hours. As the investigation went on, officers learned that the family vehicle was missing. At that point, we didn't know if it was a kidnapping or if the elderly male had just gone for a drive. Because he hadn't driven in years due to his declining health, every minute mattered. Detectives immediately searched the vehicle using our flock camera system. The camera showed when the vehicle had left and the direction of travel. We immediately put all of our resources in that area to hope to find that individual missing. As we were searching for that vehicle, the vehicle was captured again by another flock camera in a neighboring city. We were able to work with that agency and we sent our officers in that direction immediately. and we were able to locate the missing safe and unharmed. That investigation from start to finish lasted about 25 minutes. Without that information provided by Flock, finding this individual would have been like looking for a needle in a haystack. The last example I'd like to highlight is a case earlier this year in February where our detectives investigated a rideshare accused of sexual assault and kidnapping. We had surveillance footage from local businesses and residents that captured the suspect vehicle, but we had no plate information. Using our flock cameras, investigators were able to identify the vehicle, which led directly to identifying the suspect. Detectives obtained an arrest warrant and entered the vehicle into our flock system. Within 18 hours, that vehicle returned to Costa Mesa. He was working ride share again that night, and there was a potential that there was other victims that he was going to prey on. We got him in custody, which was amazing. But as our detectives dug into that case, we realized that in 2025, about eight months prior, that suspect had done the same thing to a 17-year-old juvenile. At that point in time, our detectives worked with the Orange County District Attorney's Office and got both of those cases successfully filed and removed that violent predator from our community. All three cases are just a small sample of the impact FLOCT has had over the last year And I just want to make it very clear that flock doesn't replace good police work. But it does give our officers and detectives timely, reliable investigation investigative leads to help move investigations forward appropriately. That's all I have. I'll turn it back over to Lieutenant Barnes.

Thank you, Lieutenant Jacoby. Next, I'd like to speak on the FLOC Master Service Agreement or MSA. The MSA is the contract that the City of Costa Mesa has with FLOC. It's a lengthy document that's full of lots of legalese. This contract prior to entering into agreement with FLOC was reviewed and approved by our city attorneys prior to entering into the agreement. I want to highlight this one section in particular, section 5.3. It speaks specifically to the disclosure of footage. This is something that is... been under a lot of scrutiny and this has the language again that flock is not sharing their data unless they're legally compelled to legally required to do so or if there's legal legal process compelling them just like any other court order, we're all entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. However, there's times that based upon a court order that is superseded, and that's how FLOC operates. There are potential times, kind of at the very last sentence there, for fraud or technical issues or emergency situations. That's only done in conjunction with one of the Costa Mesa administrators. None of Costa Mesa's flock data at this time has been shared by flock. We've never noticed that they've needed to share, and there hasn't been any sharing at this time. Our flock use is further governed by, it's really SB 34 that was then codified in the civil code sections, 1798, and there's several of them there. But SB 34, it mandates that we maintain security safeguards, implement a public privacy policy, and that there's public availability. And all of this is referencing the policy that we have in place at our department and the flock security safeguards with the cloud data and our internal security and then our transparency portal. further there's accountability required for use of flock and that is Happens through There's several different things, but one of those is a multi-factor authentication login that helps ensure that only authorized users are gaining access to flock and As officers are searching in the FLOC program, one of our policies internally and in the civil code, it has to be for a legitimate law enforcement purpose. And when searches are conducted now, officers are required to enter a search reason. And then we've... continue to develop and refine procedures to ensure no unauthorized users and Flock is continuing to develop and refine their technology with the addition of audit assistance which helps detect anomalies that would indicate unauthorized use of the flock system. I'd like to speak briefly on our department policy and operations now. This can also be found on our transparency page. Again, the use of FLOC, it's supposed to be for official law enforcement use only. As mentioned earlier, our data collection retention, it's for a full year. It's for 365 days. That's something we believe strongly in. because it aids in that extended retention in our investigation. Some investigations or crimes come to light well after the 30-day timeframe, and so it's important for the investigators to have those images for a longer period of time. As far as releasing the ALPR data, again, also governed in SB 34, it's not shared outside of California, it's not shared with federal agencies. We've gotten a number of public records requests, regarding flock or requesting flock information. And just to speak on that briefly, public records requests that are requesting information that's investigative in nature are prohibited from release under the government code. And so there has been times when information has been requested that we do not release. Other information that doesn't meet that criteria is released and we do release it. Occasionally there's requests for information That it's a little bit of a gray area and we simply pass those on to our city attorney for guidance They're the legal experts and we rely on their legal expertise of whether that information will be released or not released Speaking a little further on system access controls, those are all set by the FLOC administrators. There are several in the department. Primarily that was me for the past 12 months. Different people in the department have different levels of access based upon their assignment and their need to use FLOC. I'm going to speak about an incident that has been widely reported in the news. It's been spoken about here at previous council sessions regarding a former Costa Mesa officer who was investigated for misconduct that occurred in 2023 and 2024. During that internal investigation by Costa Mesa PD investigators, they found that this former officer had misused flock, was conducting searches that were not law enforcement related. During that investigation, that employee was placed on leave and the case was filed with the Orange County District Attorney's Office. The officer ended up pleading guilty in that case. There's further internal review that was conducted and was resulted that further refined Costa Mesa's audit and oversight to ensure that the system is being used for official law enforcement use only. At this time, I want to pass it off back to Captain Diaz as we wrap up the presentation.

Thank you, Lieutenant Barnes. I'd like to end with a summary of benefits that FLOC has to the City of Costa Mesa and the Police Department. FLOC has a faster response and a stronger situational awareness for our officers in the field. It has objective investigative leads to solve and prevent crimes, and it supports our precision policing and locating wanted vehicles. prevents crime through smarter resource deployment and public partnerships with allied agencies. And we have a commitment to public safety through the responsible use of flock technology and data. And we also support multi-agency response to regional crime trends with our regional partners throughout Orange County and the state of California. The Costa Mesa Police Department recommends that based on demonstrated success of the Costa Mesa Police Department's automated license plate reader program, staff recommends that the city council approve the continued use of flock safety APLR system. Another consideration that the city can have is to provide direction to strengthen the language into the master service agreement to ensure data security. And we welcome any questions from the council.

All right, now it's time for questions for council. It looks like we've got council member Pettis is up first.

Yeah, I'm not sure if this question is for the police or staff in general, but can the staff commit to, if this was to pass to an annual or quarterly or some sort of regular public report, is that something you guys would be able to put together pretty quickly? I know, yeah?

Yes, we could certainly compile a regular report of how it's being used in the successes or cases where it's being used.

With a report, could it include like arrests, recoveries, missing persons, searches, audits, violations, and corrective actions, things like that? I know it's a lot to ask, but that's the kind of detail it could include.

Yes, that's not a problem.

Okay. Will staff return to council immediately if state law vendor policy or system architecture is materially changed ahead of time?

Yes, we can. Anything that changes within the FLOG system, the administrator, it always goes through the administrator for approval or denial of any of those changes. If any law changes or any terms of the contract, obviously you'd have to go through the legal department. But any changes related to the system, whether it's a software update or some kind of change that has a direct effect of our agency and the control of our data, obviously we would have to approve that before any changes were made.

Last one. Will council have the opportunity to reconsider the program before the next contract period?

We would have to seek legal advice on that regarding our master service agreement, but certainly any contract can be revised and we would have to seek legal counsel on that prior to any expiration or a preemptive expiration of a contract.

Okay, thanks. That's all I have.

Mr. Mayor?

Council Member Camero.

Thank you. Okay, just give me a second here. So I just want to start off by thanking Lieutenant Barnes, Lieutenant Jacoby, and Captain Diaz for your presentation. I know this is rather thorough, and there's a lot of scrutiny here. I do have a few questions I'd like to have answered, if I can do that. My first question is, is there a representative here from FLOC that can speak on behalf of the software and the licensing agreement?

There is not. Not tonight.

So if DHS or ICE wants to have a licensing agreement with FLOC, can they do that in our city? Not using yours, not using ours, but can they have their own?

They cannot.

Okay, let me be clear moving forward. This is not about me attacking PD. This is me asking questions about flock and I do respect what the police department is doing, all of you. I want you to know that moving forward. Okay, so one of the things in the service agreement that was stated is that flock does not own and shall not sell customer generated data, but can they give it away? I can tell you what page I'm reading that from if you want me to refer you.

Sure.

It's going to be...

Excuse me. Hold on one second. We can't have any disruptions, all right? We can't have this. He's asking questions. Here's the process, just so you know. If you have something to say, you're going to have the opportunity to do it. He's asking questions of the staff. Let's give them the opportunity to do that, and let's give the council the opportunity to hear the answers. Then you'll have an opportunity to come up and say whatever you want for three minutes. Okay?

Mr. Mayor, I just want to weigh in. They may not give it away outside a lawful law enforcement purpose pursuant to California law under the civil code.

Okay, let's go to line item four under data use and licensing. It's gonna be 4.2, customer generated data. So I just wanna be clear, I wanna read the statement and then get your take on it. It says here that Flock may provide the customer with an opportunity to post, upload, display, publish, distribute, transmit, broadcast, or otherwise make available messages. text, illustration files, images, graphics, photos, comments, sounds, music, videos, information, content rating, reviews, questions. Have you guys had to use messages or texts or anything like that in using this? Can you specifically detail like beyond a vehicle description and a license plate without compromising how you use Flock? In what depth are you guys using this? To what extent?

Sorry, you're asking if we're using videos or music?

Well, okay. It says here that this is the customer-generated data. The police department needs a license plate, a vehicle description, and there's a possibility of facial recognition. But there's all kinds of other things that can be attached to that. So if you're not using it, Flock can use it if they want to for whatever reason? I mean, does it come up on a... I don't know what your screen looks like when it comes up. I know we saw the back of a truck, but what are you seeing? What comes up when you say, time to start looking at Flock?

Yes, I understand your question now. So the answer is that... Our camera systems only read license plates. They do not have facial recognition technology in them, and there's no other data other than a license plate reading technology that captures vehicle license plates. That's all that we receive on our end, and any other files we have no access to, and we're not distributing any of those files.

So you would not know if Flock was expounding on the information. You're just getting this much information of... this much information, is that correct?

I don't understand what you're...

So you get a couple of things, right? But it says here there's a lot of other things that they can utilize. So would you know if Flock was utilizing information other than what they're allowing you to use? And can they do that?

We own the data regarding license plate reading technology and the license plate information that comes through. Any other information, I believe that it is standard contract language that there's on the master service agreement, but we do not see any illustrations or text, music sounds that are coming through our cameras or that we're actually distributing to third parties.

Okay, let's move on to 5.1 under confidentiality. There's two parties that are listed here, the receiving and the disclosing. So who is PD? Are they the disclosing party or the receiving party?

Mr. Mayor, it depends. It depends on who is receiving the particular information that is deemed confidential. So if we are providing confidential information to FLOC, then we are the disclosing party and they are the receiving party. On the other hand, if they're disclosing confidential information to us, like some access information necessary to get into their software system, for example, then they would be the disclosing party and we would be the receiving party.

Okay, so the reason I ask this is because under 5.1 it says that each party, the receiving party, whoever that is, understands that the other party, the disclosing party, has disclosed or may disclose business, technical, or financial information relating to the disclosing party's business. I don't understand, I understand if we're buying a house, the buyer and the seller, but I just, this is not clear to me. We don't have to answer it right now, but I'm bringing it up, it might get answered later. Let's move on to 5.2, please. It says here, under usage restrictions on flock IP, Customer, second paragraph here. Customer fully acknowledges that Flock retains the right to use the foregoing for any purpose in Flock's sole direction. So that right there would lead me to believe that they can take the information and do whatever they want. They put it in writing here. Is there any clarification beyond what I'm reading here, the actual language that would clarify or subvert that statement?

If I may, Mr. Mayor? Yeah, of course. Yeah, this particular language relates to their intellectual property, which is, for example, the code that they use, the software, and so on. This particular paragraph applies to their proprietary information, and they are reserving the right to use that proprietary information. This provision doesn't relate to the data that they collect on our behalf.

Okay, thank you, I appreciate that. Let's move on to item 5.3 under disclosure of footage. It says flock may access, use, preserve, and or disclose the footage to law enforcement authorities government officials and or third parties if legally required to do so or a flock has a good faith believe that such access use Preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with the legal process. I'm just gonna say right now that That flock using the word good faith belief and reasonably necessary sounds to me like they're creating a loophole so that they can use this information for whatever they want.

Don't disrupt. Go ahead.

I would just like to move on. I'm almost done. I just want to make sure I'm clear of what I'm reading here. Under 7.2, termination, it says here that upon termination that FLOC will remove any applicable FLOC hardware. Of the other cities that have terminated their agreement, did FLOC actually come out and remove their hardware? Does anyone know? If you don't know, that's okay. I mean, I just took question.

Yeah, the answer is we can't respond to other cities.

Okay, that's okay.

Removal.

Okay. And I'm almost done here. I just want to go over just a couple of other things. So flock has a replacement, um, uh, subscription. Do we have, I guess you could call it the insurance policy or whatever. If, if, if a camera becomes, um, unusable or, or it breaks or whatever, um, do we have, do we have it set up where it gets replaced for free or do we have to pay the reinstall fee schedule?

Yes, if there's a malfunction or damaged camera, Flock comes out and replaces it. No additional charge. That's part of the contract cost.

Okay. Does Flock have the ability to install a physical shutter? And let me be clear on that. Such as one you might see on a laptop where you just slide the camera thing over. Do they have anything in place right now where if... You wanted to, if you can turn flock on, you can also push a button that would open or close a physical shutter. Do they have a camera option for purchase in that way so that we don't know that being looked at? Is that?

I'm not sure of the answer to that question.

Okay, that's okay. Not a problem. I'm almost done. I'm sorry for taking up so much time here. So some of these cameras run off DC power. Does that mean that they run wirelessly and they don't need to be hooked up to a wire? They just stick them up there and then that's it?

Correct. That's one of the benefits. There's minimal, really no infrastructural need or requirement. It's all solar powered.

Okay. And then I also read, and I could be off on this, but we pay about $150,000 about $150,000 for this program, but I also read that we have a grant. So is it 300,000 in the grant offset 150, or do we not pay anything in the grant covered it?

No, the total yearly cost is 151,000.

And the grant's covering the whole cost?

The grant covered the addition of the 15 cameras in 2024. Okay. All right.

I'm going to just close real quick and just say I appreciate everything that you're doing. And my line of questioning is not against our police department. It's the way FLOC operates. And I'm not happy that there's not a FLOC representative here to answer any questions. But I do appreciate everything. For that, I'm done for now, Mr. Mayor. Thanks.

You're welcome. Any other questions? We've got a couple. COUNCIL MEMBER BEALEY.

I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS AND I'LL RESERVE SOME COMMENTS AFTER THE PUBLIC SESSION. FIRST OFF, TO ECHO COUNCIL MEMBER GUIMAROS, I APPRECIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT. I APPRECIATE ALL YOU GUYS DO FOR OUR CITY. In the year and a half that I've been up here on council, I've come to really respect and appreciate your professionalism. In the 23 years I've lived here in the community, I've appreciated the fact that we live in a safe community, and thank you guys for serving our community. A couple questions, and this may be for city attorney.

You know, this is a national discussion we're having here on FLOC.

And it touches on significant constitutional issues. And a lot of times there's sound bites and there's things that are said. And I appreciate the presentation tonight because there can be a lot of information out there that's not quite accurate. And I appreciate your efforts tonight to clarify some of that and to put that out there. But a question I've gotten, it's more of a legal question. It seems the gravamen or the core issue that a lot of us are having with a flock system is it's an invasion of our rights to privacy. I mean, that's the big top line argument. And question for city attorney. In public spaces, is there generally a right to privacy in public spaces?

in very limited circumstances, but your physical presence in a public space whether you're in your vehicle or not, on a bicycle or wherever you may be, that's public knowledge and public information. It's not private information.

And I've seen on the news and things lately, you've got those crazy guys with a green mask standing in front of postal services filming people trying to get a rise out of them. And they always say, these guys are harassing me. Can't they stop? But because it's a federal property, public space, You could be filmed in a public space, even without Flock, without any of this stuff.

You can, although there are some, you know, privacy, personal space, no harassment, that type of thing, yes.

But generally, if you're out popping around in public, doing things on a public roadway, you generally could be filmed, whether it's by Flock or anybody. Correct. And it wouldn't be a violation of anybody's right to privacy. Correct. Page 11. of your presentation. Got a couple questions on that. That was one of the provisions that you guys have highlighted. Can you put that up? Where it talks about disclosing the footage to law enforcement.

That's 5.3, yeah, page 11. Yeah.

disclose the footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and or third parties, if legally required to do so. Maybe again, this is for city attorney. One scenario that might be third parties, two private individuals involved in a lawsuit over a car accident or something, and in that instance, even private individuals would be third parties, wouldn't be law enforcement, wouldn't be government officials, but in a lawsuit, they could go get a subpoena, and they could serve that and then that would be lawful process where they'd be required in this instance to turn over that information assuming they complied with all the requirements that would be a lawful process provided that both flock and the city would have to comply with existing provisions

uh... the fsb thirty four and and fifty four which uh... include that we are not allowed to turn over desegregated or non anonymized data other people as if the instrument of my concerns or third parties that sounded pretty ominous even in that scenario that i doubt it'd be third parties attempting to comply with the legal process

And as you've pointed out, the city or whoever was in charge of this flock data would have to review that legal process, make sure it was in compliance with California law and everything else. It's just not third parties got access to this stuff, correct?

Yes, so let me explain just a little bit. As I understand it, the flock retention period for our data is only 30 days. We retain the data for longer than that, for a year. So the language in 5.3 refers to their 30-day retention period, and it allows them to preserve it or disclose it if they receive, yes, a lawful process. So that would be a subpoena. It could be a court order. It could be a warrant. It's a type of legal process that might require release of that information. And potentially, it could be a national security letter, which is typically only used in terrorism-type investigations. So if they were to receive that, except in the case of a national security letter, and this only happens sometimes, they would be able to tell us, and we would have the right to object to whatever that legal process is, not only to review it, unless they have a court order that they can't share it with us, but again, that typically is not the case, then we would be able to review it, and if necessary, we could appear to protect that data.

And I think last thing on this particular provision, it was highlighted that preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary. And it was alluded to that that appeared to be some vague wiggle room that opened it up to possible misuse. But if we read further, to comply with legal process. So disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with legal process. So that's an instance where FLOC or the city is approached, and they just don't have discretion to let it. It's got to have a nexus to legal process.

It has to actually be necessary. Now, if we disagree with their determination, I would be the first one to step in and request the court protect that data from disclosure. Nonetheless, there is certainly the possibility that we could tighten that language to the extent it makes any council member uncomfortable.

And this one is directed back to staff or gentlemen here tonight. I appreciate that you brought forward the incident that we've heard a lot about where one of your members abused the system. In that instance, you guys discovered it, you guys reported it, correct?

Yes.

And in every large organization, there may be some bad actors. You'd agree?

Unfortunately, yes.

And the best organizations, they find those bad actors and they make an example of them. Wouldn't you agree with that?

Yes.

And the current... Contract we have, it expires in April of 27? Yes, sir. And not only is Costa Mesa, but I think nationally, their contract is being scrutinized. Is that a pretty fair statement?

I believe so.

And we'll have that opportunity at that time to get the benefit of all the other provisions that have been tightened up, and when we sit down and renegotiate with them, we can tighten up some of these perceived loopholes. Would that be a fair statement? Yes, sir. Okay, that's all I've got for now.

Okay, does anybody else have any questions? Councilmember Moore?

Yeah, thank you. I want to thank the Chief for her opening statement. I've had the opportunity to talk with her as well about some of my concerns, and I really appreciate the transparency and willingness to find some compromises too. One of the things we haven't talked about tonight is the way in which data gets shared with other cities. I know we don't share outside of California. My understanding is after we heard about the incident in El Cajon that we turned off sharing to El Cajon. Is that correct?

We did.

Okay, so we have the ability to turn off for individual cities?

Yes.

Across California?

Yes.

Okay. And, I mean, I understand contiguous cities. We want to, you know, if somebody goes to Newport, it's like one street away in many cases. But what is the rationale for sharing more broadly than just the contiguous cities?

we've just seen it where criminals travel they're not confined to Costa Mesa or Orange County or even Southern California we've had cases where crimes happening here in Costa Mesa and people are using vehicles to to get around and they're located far far away from Costa Mesa and so it's important To be able to have that network in California, to be able to track that down to bring closure and close out cases, it's vitally important.

But I'd argue that there's parts of Arizona that are closer than parts of California. So is it just SB 54 that prevents us from deciding it's a good idea to share with Arizona?

Yes, there are definitely parts of Arizona and Nevada that are closer than Northern California, but that's what we're limited to, and so we share throughout the state.

Okay. And are there any other cities like El Cajon that we've decided are potentially bad actors or who we don't trust to abide by SB 54? Yeah, there were... Let's see...

several other incidents that were in the news earlier this year Mountain View PD was one of the ones that it was determined they had disclosed some data nationally back in 2024 and then Santa Cruz was another one they had been their data had been accessed by out-of-state agencies lacking some data sharing agreements, which was a violation of SB 34. And so Santa Cruz terminated their contract and FLOC restricted their audit record visibility as a result of that. And FLOC has continued to examine their policies and practices and procedures. And then in March of 2025, a little over a year ago, that's where they turned off their statewide lookup, it's limited. It's California, it couldn't even happen by accident at this point. That was something FLOC recognized they needed to change. And so since March of 2025, none of the agencies in California that are using FLOC are able, even if they wanted to or by accident, to share data outside of, or with agencies outside of the state. I don't know if that answers the question.

It does, thank you. The definitions section of the contract makes reference to audio and audio detection. Are we using the audio piece of it?

We are not. It's simply those license plate photos that I shared in the presentation of that truck. That's all we're using.

So city attorney, one of the things that I brought up to you previously is section 2.4, upgrades to platform. My concern is that FLOC may push an update to the platform and that there's no provision for us to have to be notified. I think several press releases brag about additional capabilities, although It sounds like they just backtracked from some of the gunshot detection. Is that a section you would feel comfortable tightening up in order to ensure that we are notified if any updates or features that we are unaware of get pushed to the platform?

Absolutely. And we can update that language to ensure that they are not adding features or updates that we do not want.

Okay. Captain Diaz, how many people in Costa Mesa have access to the flock system?

I think it's, I can. Sorry. That's okay. Currently it's 170 employees and that's primarily our sworn police officers. A handful of civilian staff that includes our dispatchers. Our dispatchers also use flock on their daily jobs.

Do we really think that all 170 need access?

Would make the argument that it's certainly possible That that they can need access we part of our job throughout my career. I've been in different assignments we we rotate around assignments and There's times when officers might not be using it as much But then there's times where they could rotate assignments and and they need that that Officer use or employee use is tracked in our internal audits. And so as an administrator, I have the ability to see who's logging in to flock, when the last time they logged into flock, what type of searches, the number of searches they're conducting. It's one of the features that flock has improved. To help us monitor and audit our own folks to ensure that the use is being conducted for law enforcement purposes only.

Can you say more about that? What justification an officer has to provide for accessing flocks?

When our officers access flock, they need to list a law enforcement reason. So if they're investigating a crime or potentially looking for a missing person, they list the reason or the type of offense that they're looking for. And so it's used every day by our patrol officers who are responding to calls for service that have vehicles involved. and it's used on a daily basis by all of our investigators who are investigating crimes where vehicles are involved.

Just to push back a little bit, I mean, I've done seven ride-alongs and seven years on council, and never once have I had the patrol officer I was with pull up flock. Is that just coincidence, or...?

Could be coincidence. The officers, not in their car when they're driving around, but they are supposed to be logging in. FLOC does run in the background where whenever there's a hit on a vehicle that's in a law enforcement database, there's alert provided to our dispatchers or officers or whoever's logged into FLOC. It doesn't

Have to be running Where it's open and visible it it can just run in the background to alert officers of a Wanted vehicle And on the justification do folks have to put a case number their badge number or like what how much information are we collecting from each of those and

They don't have to put a case number. Sometimes searches are conducted before a case number is issued on a case, and there may not be a case number. They do have to provide a reason, and currently it's a drop-down menu of 20-plus reasons that are really all the main justifiable reasons, law enforcement reasons, that officers would search for a vehicle on flock.

Okay. There was a report and part of the concern in Los Angeles specifically has been related to false flags. You're nodding so you're familiar. Can you say more about that? Is that something we've experienced or we wouldn't know necessarily if we had experienced?

Forgive me. I'm not familiar with the term false. Okay.

Captain Diaz nodded If I'm understanding correctly you're relating to false hits, right? So we did experience some false hits where? Sarah dispatch would get a license plate of a hit and then run it and it would come back as a non-stolen vehicle Through research, we found out, especially at nighttime, when we first obtained the system, that the license plates that were being read were incorrect. So like an F could have been an E, and it would have the wrong plate. One of the procedures that we have is when our dispatch gets a hit, they run it to ensure that it's stolen, but then it also requires the officer out in the field to verify that information visually to ensure that we are dealing with the correct vehicle. Okay.

FLOC's website says their standard retention period is 30 days. I understand we opted for the full 365 days. Has there ever been a period where we thought 30 days was sufficient or we just went for the max?

So, you're correct. FLOC has a 30-day retention period, and we opted for the 365-day. Oftentimes, crimes aren't discovered past 30 days. You could go up to 180 days. You could go 90 days, depending on the type of investigation that they're conducting through our Investigative Services Bureau. especially with our organized retail theft. We have professional criminal crews that are going up and down the state committing organized retail theft. And some of these crimes aren't being discovered up to 180 days plus. And so that's why our department chose to have a retention period of 365 days. Okay.

City Attorney, I think this one's for you. So the definition of retention period is the time period that customer data is stored within the cloud storage as specified in the product addenda. What's not clear to me, it seems like there's an opportunity here to distinguish between the time that Flock is retaining our data, the time period that we have access to it, and then further if we get to the data destruction conversation, I mean, just because we don't have access to that data doesn't necessarily mean that it's been destroyed. So that seems like another opportunity for clarification across the board. You're nodding. Okay. I think I talked about, yeah. So on 5.3, we're gonna keep coming back to this section. This entire room's gonna be familiar with 5.3 by the time we're done with this, but why, if it's our data, and they make a point of saying that, why would anybody go to Flock and not us for access to that data? Like why do they have any stewardship at all? Guys, we're going to have a really long night, so I appreciate it, but let's get to the answers to the questions.

Mr. Mayor, if I may. So the reason that someone would go to FLOC for that data is it might be, for example, a third party who doesn't realize that the information actually belongs to us. What their process and practice is, and they sent us the policy, I think it's attached to the report, is that they will tell whoever asked them for it, it's our data, and if they want it, they should ask us. So if they were to receive a Public Records Act request, for example, they'd say, we're not a public records agency. Go and ask your public agency. And if they did that, then I would say, well, we aren't allowed to give that data under the civil code. We cannot give confidential information or information that would violate right to privacy and there's a California Supreme Court case on this actually that says giving the raw data to someone of all of, for example, all of the hits for a specific period of time would not be permitted under the California Records Act. Forget the civil code section that prohibits it. That's SB 34. And so we don't release that data. The most that the court has said is that if there is some way to anonymize the data, And I haven't figured out how they do that, but it would be like taking every plate and assigning a random number to it. So the data belongs to us. We understand, and I'm perfectly willing to work with, if the council so directs, to work on tightening the language that if they receive a subpoena, a request, a letter asking for, you know, a picture because there was a car accident or whatever it might be, they would refer that request to us. And then we would respond because it is our data. They do not own it.

And to extend that, they would refer it to us and they would not respond by providing the data?

Unless they received a federal court order or a state court order that told them they were obligated to do so. And if, as I understand it, based on their policy, if they receive such an order, unless it is accompanied by what they call a gag order, which is very unusual, they would tell us that they received such an order so that we could take steps to protect the data.

Yeah I mean I think there's two there's two parts that are bothering me to that and I mean one is the requirement for provision of notice to us I mean as it stands right now like they don't have to tell us anything we can add it to the contract but But I'd want to be aware of all of the scenarios, right? If they get a third party request, if Apple comes to them for information, if they get a warrant from ICE, I mean, all of the various scenarios should conceivably be directed to us if it's our data.

They should. The only exception would be, and this is, again, very, very unusual, if they were to receive, for example, a national security request. LETTER THAT SOMETIMES COMES WITH AN ORDER NOT TO DISCLOSE IT TO ANYONE. AND THAT'S ALMOST ALWAYS, AS FAR AS I KNOW, IN TERRORISM INVESTIGATION.

OKAY. 4.2, COUNCIL MEMBER GOMEROS RAISED THIS EARLIER. HONESTLY, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THIS SECTION IS REFERRING TO. FLOCK MAY PROVIDE THE CUSTOMER WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO POST ALL THIS STUFF. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE POSTING IT OR WHY WE WOULD POST IT OR WHY FLOCK IS GIVING US THAT OPPORTUNITY. Unless someone can tell me there's a reason for it, it seems like that entire section should be struck. City Attorney? Question? Mark?

Yeah, it's to allow us to give them things that we want posted. Where? Why? Well, it could be a, I mean, I don't know, if we had the type of system where it could for example, broadcast something, right?

It's like a ring camera feed. Anyway, I think we should strike it because I don't know what it means and we're not using it.

If we're not using it, I'll work with the police department on that one.

And then on anonymized data, I mean, I do think it's funny. We supposedly own our data. There's this whole question of retention. And yet we are granting them in a non-exclusive worldwide perpetual royalty-free right to use and distribute anonymized data to improve their services. One, they should be paying us if they're going to use our data for training. Two, I would rather just strike that whole section and propose that they not use any of our data for training, anonymized or otherwise. City Attorney, do you have an issue with that? Okay. I think that's it for now. Mr. Mayor, I will offer, I've got 10 different places in the contract where I'd like to propose AMENDMENTS OR CHANGES I WON'T GO THROUGH THEM LINE BY LINE NOW BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE MAKING MOTIONS PARTY WE'LL BE READY FOR THAT.

THANK YOU.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THAT. SO COUNCIL MEMBER OR MAYOR PROTEM

Thank you, Mayor Stephens. Thank you, everyone, for your good questions. And thank you, the audience, for letting us ask the questions without interruption. So I appreciate that. I kind of want to dig a little deeper on some points made by customer ,, mainly about the fact that 170 people in PD have access to the flock data. So I actually watched the Santa Council meeting that occurred, I think, in May of this year when they were reviewing their flock camera. And they did not give the answer of 170 people have access to their data. So what's the best practice when it comes to having number of people access flock data that you've seen in policing?

I think the current practice that we have coupled with strong oversight and regular consistent audits is the best way to go about it. Yes?

How often do we audit?

Those audits are generally conducted once a week.

Once a week? Yes. So every week you see how many times someone in our organization has used Flock?

That's correct.

How often? On average, how many times a week is someone using flock?

It really varies on their assignment. There's times when officers may go several weeks without using flock. Um, Our investigators are running multiple searches every single day, and we have a handful of our officers who are, again, they're using it every day. It depends on what happens in the field, what types of calls they're on, so it varies. But there's very regular use.

Okay. The investigators that I kind of understand, because I would assume they're in an office space trying to formulate some type of conclusions, when would a typical officer who's on patrol have the time to even access Flock?

So for example, if officers responded to a domestic violence incident and the suspect fled in a vehicle, one of the first tools they would use would be flocked to see where that vehicle maybe went, if it fled, if it's still in Costa Mesa, if it's gone to another city. And oftentimes when it does go to another city, we're able to use those good collaborative mutual aid relationships and have them go look for suspects of crimes. We do that for other agencies and they do that for us. And so that's where we find from the patrol perspective, if a vehicle's involved in a crime and it's not there when the officers are there, using FLOC is an automatic resource and we find it to be invaluable for our day-to-day patrol officers who are trying to solve crime and keep the public safe.

Okay. I THINK THAT'S IT FOR NOW. THANK YOU.

COUNCILMEMBER REYNOLDS.

YEAH, THANK YOU. REALLY APPRECIATE THE REPORT, ANSWERS TO ALL THE QUESTIONS, ALL THE QUESTIONS FROM MY COLLEAGUES HERE. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE INTERNAL AUDIT PROCESS A LITTLE BIT MORE. MAYBE WE CAN START WITH WHAT CHANGES WERE MADE SINCE THE very embarrassing incident, right, of inappropriate access by a Costa Mesa employee.

Yes.

What did we change to make sure that will never happen again?

What's changed is there's a rigid internal checks and balances to ensure that employees who no longer work for us or are on administrative leave have their access revoked to not only FLOC but all other law enforcement databases that police officers have access to and are entrusted with.

Okay, so making sure that once people are no longer employees, they don't have access.

Or place on administrative leave or in a situation where they don't have a right to that information.

Is the weekly audit new or is that something that we've been performing?

The audit is something I've been doing since I've been the flock administrator for about the last 12 months.

Can you talk a little bit about sort of the process? What are you looking for in that? What information are you getting in the weekly audit? What are you looking for?

So it's rather voluminous because our officers are using FLOC quite regularly. I'm grateful for FLOC's implementation of, they call it their audit assistance tool, and it's... just a system that helps flag unusual use of flock. And so an example of that would be if an officer is searching for one plate multiple times, and that could be indicative of potential unauthorized use. And so as the administrator, While it is time-consuming. It's it's important to ensure that they the use is authorized and so We we can then check or I have checked What the plate is and how that pertains to official law enforcement business. So is that a case they're investigating? Is that a crime? they're trying to look at and ensure that it's connected to a legitimate law enforcement purpose and so I That's the best way to catch that unauthorized use.

Well, it was authorized use, right? Because that person was an authorized user. It was an inappropriate use of the system by an authorized user.

Correct. That officer should not have been using it for personal means.

Yeah.

That was absolutely inappropriate.

And did that system you referenced that kind of automates this unusual behavior that didn't exist when this was happening?

No, it did not, unfortunately.

Okay. I'm also having a little bit of a hard time sort of reconciling your sharing that Phylloxera is used multiple times a day by multiple people. The data shared on resolutions, recovered stolen vehicles, missing persons, help found, I would expect that to maybe be higher based on the voluminous uses on a daily basis. Can you just help me reconcile why there would be so much access relative to cases solved?

I would say that it's being used quite regularly, again, by our investigators and our patrol officers. And there's times when those vehicles aren't located. The vehicles aren't mobile. They're not picked up by the cameras. They're not traveling where cameras are. And so those vehicles aren't located. And yeah, there's there's plenty of times where vehicles are involved in crimes or incidents that despite flocks use, unfortunately, you know, we're still working on those cases.

OK. On the authorized access, going back to that, I was also surprised with the number of authorized users just within our own department. And your explanation for sort of that use in real time to respond to incidents makes sense. It sounds different when we maybe have an investigative team sort of following up on leads, right? Could it make sense, and I just want you to think about it, to sort of partition the access, right? So maybe we've got folks who are sort of active on the job and need to have access in real time if there is an active pursuit, have access to real time data, but a much smaller pool of people who might have access to data as part of longer term investigations.

So that's, there's different levels or there's different roles within the flock system. And so the administrators have the ability to grant different levels of access to different employees based upon their roles. And so our investigators have the most advanced search capabilities and our dispatchers and our patrol officers, they have, I guess, for the lack of a better word, just like the most basic level of search capabilities. Due to the jobs they're in, it's deemed that they don't need the additional search capabilities that the investigators might.

Okay, so that's that maybe already exists, but it's certainly a feature in the system. Yes How often are we reviewing those access levels so who has access and what level they have access to So that's something that can be changed.

There's currently nine administrators that includes us sitting here at the table and then several other command command staff at the police department and so that access is is reviewed on a weekly basis during the audit um that which lieutenant jacoby and i are and have been conducting and that's that's when that's reviewed and then anytime there's personnel changes in the department Sometimes that happens mid-year, sometimes that happens at the beginning of the year. When those personnel changes happen and assignment changes happen, coordinating flock privileges are changed at those time and that can be done by any of the administrators whenever those changes take place.

Okay, it sounds a little bit ad hoc. Is that fair? Like when there's a personnel change, someone will log in and review access. We don't have sort of a regular rhythm of reviewing who has access? Or is there any reason that we couldn't have that?

I guess I'm not following. The administrators can and do review the different role levels within FLOC. That's part of the weekly audit that I'm conducting or I conduct along with Lieutenant Jacoby. And then when those personnel moves happen, again, those can happen throughout the year. There's a procedure to update the FLOC user levels.

Okay, so on a weekly basis, you're reviewing whether who has access. Yes, that's part of the audit process. Does the audit process, does the audit that you're reviewing, sounds like you're reviewing in your role on a weekly basis, include requests for data or access to our data from other agencies in California?

Yes. Yeah, so during the... Actually, the way FLOC's set up, anytime an agency is requesting to share data with us or see our data, it's not an automatic approval. It has to go through a, it has to be granted by the Costa Mesa FLOC administrators. And so that's done on a weekly basis. by the administrators, and so there's a verification process and granting of access to the various agencies.

Okay. When you say granting of access, is that to be able to access our data generally or for each specific request for information? So if a Newport beach police officer is saying, Hey, there's someone who might've gone into your city. We'd like to track license plate X, Y, Z. I think what I'm hearing is you're saying one of our nine administrators has to review that request and give it a green light or not.

So it's a general, uh, granting of permission to those other agencies. Not, we're not granting each individual in individual search by the other agencies.

Got it, okay, so in addition to the more than 200 Costa Mesa employees who have access? 170. Well, you said 170 plus some civilian staff plus our dispatch.

I'm sorry. I may have misspoke. It's 170 total. That includes all of our officers and civilian staff.

So in addition to our 170 Costa Mesa employees, well, maybe you should know this number in your role. How many other individuals have access to Costa Mesa flock data?

I couldn't answer that. I don't know the number of officers statewide that have access to Costa Mesa data.

Okay. That would be good to know. I mean, if it's 170 in Costa Mesa, is it 170 times the 50-plus city? I don't know how many cities. I'm just trying to get a sense of scale. Because each of these points is a vulnerability that has been breached. And so I think some of the things I hear other council members wrestling with as well is like how do we minimize that vulnerability? So this seems like a pretty big pool of access, right?

Okay.

Okay. But you would be able to know?

I could check with FLOC and see that's not a number, even as an administrator, that we would have access to.

Okay, please yeah, so what I'm understanding you say is that If officer who in the state of California has access to our systems So when we share data with other agencies We're all operating under the same civil code and under sp-34 that there are safeguards in place to ensure that systems aren't being misused so If I'm sharing information with, say, San Francisco PD, I know that they're also operating under SB 34, knowing that there's safeguards in place that they are not going to share on a national level, both for SB 54, which is the California Values Act, and also ensuring that they're not abusing these systems the same way and the same policies and procedures that Costa Mesa has.

I appreciate that. And that's the way things should work, right? We know there have been breaches. And so what I'm trying to get at is how many individuals So always a bad apple in a big group of people, right? How many individuals, and do we even know who those individuals are who can tap into Costa Mesa flock data? What I'm understanding from this conversation is we maybe generally grant Newport Beach, for example, Newport Beach PD access to our system, but we don't actually know the 170 officers in Newport Beach who might be able to access our data. Is that right?

Correct. Correct. They are under the same scrutiny that we are, where they're also being audited Any time they're using that information or they're running a system, we have, and both their administrators as well, have access to why it's being used and the purpose of that running of that information or data.

So when we're granting access to other agencies, we have control of that, but we don't control or it sounds like even have knowledge of what Users individual users. They're giving that access to is that right?

Yeah, that's right. Yeah, okay.

Yeah, that seems like a whole okay, and then There's been a lot of discussion about fly. I'm just I'm kind of going through that like who has access to this big pool of data. We're creating so our officers 170 Sounds like probably in the thousands of people from other California agencies that We know flock or contract terms as they exist flock has ability to use Data I appreciate all the comments. I've heard so far on that And then and does that come up in your audit reports like when flock might be axing accessing our system to pull data I Guess I'm not sure what you're asking if flock is using our data in in any way does that come up in the audit report I

Yeah, FLOC is not using our data. They're not accessing our data.

We've gone through a number of provisions that allow them to use our data.

Correct.

But you're certain they're not using our data?

I haven't seen anything to indicate that FLOC is accessing or using our data.

Okay, so any of these requests, if there's a request that were discussed up here related to an insurance claim or a federal request for data, you're saying in the 12 months that you've been in your role, you haven't seen any of those requests come through?

We have not received any of those, that's correct.

Okay. And if there are breaches to the system, hacking, I don't know if I'm using the right term, would that information come through in your audit report? That's something that I understand, you know, Flock is supposed to manage, but if there is a breach, have you gotten any information about that?

I haven't got any information that our system internally or Flock has been hacked.

Okay.

Okay. And just to come back on, there have been a couple questions about the Section 4.2, the customer-generated data. My understanding from this conversation is that we do not create any customer-generated data. We are not uploading any data to the flock system.

That is correct. We are not.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

I just want to ask first, I've got a few questions, but just kind of pragmatic questions. Walk me through. So let's say there's some domestic violence incident that occurs in Costa Mesa. And we respond, and we get some information from the victim that the person who, it's usually her, right, the person who abused her left in a car, and she's got the license plate. Okay, what do we do?

Our patrol officers or dispatch or anyone who's logged into the flock system? enters that vehicle information and search reason of investing investigating a domestic violence incident into flock and Look for any recent activity where that? Particular vehicle was seen driving past any of our flock cameras

Okay. And so we would look in our flock cameras for a hit on that license plate. Now, let's suppose we see that there were some hits, but that car is no longer in Costa Mesa. How do we obtain the data? Now this person is on the loose. They're out in there. Maybe they're in Tustin. Maybe they've made it all the way to Corona. Who knows? How do we catch that guy using Flock?

So because of the collaboration and partnership and data sharing that we have with other local and state agencies, we can expand that search from outside Costa Mesa and see if that vehicle that is a suspect vehicle in Costa Mesa is in fact in one of the neighboring cities or perhaps a nearby county. And that provides investigative leads for either our officers or investigators to pursue that case further.

So how do you expand it? Is there like a menu where you can say, I want to check the box of Tustin and Santa Ana and Corona and whatever? Or does it just shoot out a text to all of the agencies that are participating in the flock system?

The users can specify what cameras they want to search.

Okay. And that could be in any of those cities I mentioned, if they think that the person who's fleeing the domestic violence incident might be in another city.

That's correct.

Okay. And then if we get a hit, then we're kind of onto this guy, right? And we can follow the guy and we can call up, let's say the Corona PD and say, we've got somebody who committed a domestic violence incident in Costa Mesa. You know, can you look for this guy? Yes. Right. And then that's kind of like, didn't you explain a similar situation, Lieutenant Jacoby, that I just kind of, wasn't that like your second example, sort of?

Yeah, we've utilized other resources. department's camera systems to locate either victims or suspects.

Right. So this isn't like what I'm going, what I'm talking about right now and laying out this and trying to understand how you use the technology. This is not a hypothetical. I mean, this is stuff that's happening, not just in our city, but unfortunately, you know, we go to the to the event every year, there's domestic violence throughout the state of California and United States of America. And so this is also happening and there's reciprocity, right? So if somebody commits an act of domestic violence in Corona, then those Corona PD officers would be able to find out if that person who committed the domestic violence is in Costa Mesa, right? Yes, sir. And then we would help them, right? We would, if we were called, we'd help them to try to catch the guy, right?

Yes. Okay.

And, you know, then that's one of the things you do, right? I mean, that's part of your job.

That's correct.

We help mutual aid. Got it. Okay. For the city attorney... Has the flock, all the stuff we're talking about with flock, used by however many, I think it's in one of the slides, 500 governmental agencies, has it ever been challenged in court as being unconstitutional, either on privacy grounds or Fourth Amendment grounds or anything like that?

There have been court cases not I don't know if they're specific to FLOC, but about ALPRs and similar systems. And I think as Councilmember Bewley mentioned earlier, unless a technology like that is used to specifically track an individual on a prolonged basis, it is not a It is not unconstitutional. People are out in public. I mean, we see cameras everywhere, both in, you know, private businesses and public buildings and public streets. Some of them are traffic cameras. Some of them are flock cameras. Some of them are probably not even on. But there it's, you know, We can't search inside people's cars. We don't use our technology, and we couldn't use our technology, for example, to zoom in to try to see what is on people's phones or on materials in their car, et cetera. But if they're out in public, again, whether they're in their car or not, it's public.

not not a constitutional violation yeah i think i think what you're the phrase you're thinking about is whether there's an expectation of privacy when you're in public right and you got your mic on yes correct and the courts that have ruled on this have said that when you're in public driving your car around you do not have an expectation of privacy is that right a reasonable expectation of privacy correct okay when these flock cameras are stationary, right? Yes, sir. Yeah, and they pick up this license plate data, right? But even when we saw your photo, there's images around the car, right? You know, not just the license plate data, correct?

That's correct. Okay.

What would happen... if there was some other information on the image that was useful in solving a crime other than license.

and over a certain timeframe to see if there's any possible matches. And so that's all the capabilities that Costa Mesa has with our flock system is the license plate and then vehicle characteristics or descriptions.

What about apart from a vehicle? Let's say, for example, just an example, let's say there's some street fight. OK, let's make it something that's tangible. If we were the Newport Beach Police Department, and we had the incident that occurred on July 4 at the peninsula, and we had flock cameras there, and there was ability to detect people on the cameras, no vehicles, just people on the cameras committing crimes, would we use that information to solve crimes?

Our flock cameras are not configured to capture that. It only takes pictures if vehicles are involved. We don't have a means with our contract in our system to search for things other than vehicles.

So other than vehicles, it's not like a person like riding a bike or walking would trip the camera and you'd be able to see it. Is that right?

That's correct. Okay. Our current configuration and system.

Okay. Would you be able to use the audit information that you've developed to IF SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO DO THIS BUT IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS TO NARROW THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WITHIN THE CITY THAT HAVE ACCESS TO FLOCK BY, FOR EXAMPLE, SAYING LOOK, WE'VE DONE THE MATH AND IT YEAH, 170 IN THE CITY ARE AVAILABLE, BUT IT TURNS OUT THAT ONLY 100 HAVE EVER EVEN ACCESSED FLOCK. SO WE'RE GOING TO LOP OFF THE 70 THAT HAVEN'T ACCESSED FLOCK IN THE LAST YEAR. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE THE DATA WOULD BE ABLE TO DO TO MAKE THOSE JUDGMENTS?

Yeah, we can turn off or turn on the user access as administrators any time. That doesn't change the terms or costs for our flock use. We could have as many or as few users as administrators as we elected or decided.

But if you were to narrow the amount of people that had access to the data that work for the city of Costa Mesa and just eliminate people who rarely access the data, if ever, do you think it would impact the effectiveness of flock as a crime fighting tool?

No, it would not have any impact on that whatsoever.

Okay. And I think you said this, but we've never shared any information with ICE, right?

We absolutely have not.

Okay.

Okay.

I don't have any other questions. If we don't have any other questions, let's open.

I do. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

We were almost there. We were almost there. Be quick. I'll be quick. Council member.

Real quick.

Yes, sir.

Let's just say someone uses, not for some sort of nefarious activity, but let's say someone uses the system for recreational purposes. Do we have something in place where they get a written warning, they get a verbal warning? How does that work, where if somebody misuses it just on a light level?

I'll answer that. Go ahead. That's a great question. So if someone were to use it for recreational purposes and not a law enforcement purpose, it would actually result in an administrative investigation within our own city with our professional standards bureau. We have laws in place that regulate that. Any misuse of a law enforcement database, it would certainly result in an investigation of that employee. And if that allegation were to be found sustained, I'm more than positive that discipline would be imposed.

So correct me if I'm wrong in making this statement. Every single use of flock by some sort of law enforcement personnel, someone at the department, is governed by a law, not a rule?

It's governed both by policy and by law. It has to have a law enforcement purpose.

So then with that said, if someone deviates from policy but not the law, what happens? What's the protocol? Do you have a protocol?

Well, our policy states that it has to be a law enforcement purpose, and if we were to discover a misuse of that, it would certainly result in an administrative investigation.

Okay. A couple of other questions here, and I'm sorry, but I just want to be very thorough with this. This is extremely important. Do you know about how many gigabytes of memory that we use per day? instituting the usage of Flock? Is there a guess? Is there a way to track it? It goes to the cloud, but it's Flock's cloud, right?

I couldn't tell you the exact amount of gigabytes of data that's being stored or used on a daily basis.

Is there a way that we could store that data on our own hard drive and eliminate it from Flock's use, say, for 90 days or something like that? Is that something that's possible? and internal storage?

We would have to consult with our IT department. I know that there's proprietary systems in place with Flock, but it would be an IT question that would have to be answered by our IT staff.

Okay. Lieutenant Barnes, when you do the weekly audit, do you document on a form exactly what you've done? Is it a check-in box, or do you just kind of look and, okay, everything looks good?

So the weekly audit is all that activity is tracked within FLOC. So there's a record of everything as an administrator that's getting checked, that's happening, that's getting approved.

So it's documented that one was performed, the following line items were looked at, and everything seemed fine.

Yes, sir.

Amber Alerts. When an Amber Alert comes up, what is the protocol for this department for Flock if there is a contiguous city that raises it or whatever? What happens at that moment regarding Flock?

Amber Alerts are one of the law enforcement databases that's automatically connected to Flock. So when a vehicle that's an Amber Alert vehicle is in that system, if it was to flag or hit on a Flock camera in Costa Mesa, we would be notified.

Okay. Those are the last few questions I just had. I thought of it. I really do appreciate you answering all my questions. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have anybody from the public that wishes to speak on this? So the best way to do it is to line up on both sides and then I'll go back and forth and we'll get to hear from everybody more efficiently that way.

All right.

All right, let's everybody settle so we can hear each other.

Settle down.

Settle down, please.

Thank you.

Okay. Ma'am, you're first. You have the floor.

Hello, City Council members. I am Crystal Guerra, a licensed clinical social worker and co-executive director of Underground Grit. At Underground Grit, our walk-through life model offers holistic mental health, re-entry support, and mentorship through programming like boxing and our art and fashion show. We provide a community where youth can replace the trauma of the justice system with leadership and connection, effectively breaking through the school-to-prison pipeline. My life's work is dedicated to the well-being of the youth and families who call the Shalimar neighborhood and the broader Costa Mesa community home. Every day I witness the profound resilience of these families as they navigate complex systems, but I also see how easily the sense of safety and trust essential for mental health can be eroded. In my direct observations, many residents have expressed a deep sense of unease and fear about being constantly tracked. They have shared that they feel watched rather than protected, a dynamic that directly undermines the very trust and mental stability I worked so hard to support. Costa Mesa's 46 flock safety cameras cost taxpayers over $150,000 annually. This warrantless surveillance represents a direct threat to our community's privacy and dignity. True safety cannot exist without privacy, yet this program has already sparked intense debate due to data misuse scandals. Furthermore, the sharing of automated license plate data with external agencies creates a climate of terror for our immigrant families. There is a deep, valid fear that this technology facilitates ICE enforcement, turning our city's infrastructure into a tool for family separation. For my clients in Shalimar, this creates an environment of chronic vulnerability where a simple trip to the grocery store or a drive to work feels like a calculated risk. Over 80 cities across the country have already recognized that true safety is built through community, not surveillance, and have canceled their contracts. I am calling on you today to prioritize the mental health and dignity of our residents over this invasive technology. Please stand with the families I serve and cancel the flock safety contract immediately. Thank you.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Francesco, and I'm a pediatric psychologist who lives and works in the city of Orange. I frequent your city, and many of my patients live here. The reason I am against automated license plate readers is because, despite the many claims that we've heard tonight, they do, in fact, gather much more information than just license plates. They gather information on everything they capture, that is, people's faces, likeness, and body types. and they save it on a database for users, authorized or otherwise, to use later. Now, a lot of our community members have taken it upon themselves to walk your city block by block, and they have discovered cameras not pointed at traffic stops, but at playgrounds and at bike paths where children play. Now... These companies have shown that the data they collect around the country are not as secure as it seems. They've left hours of live streamed data not protected by username or password up for grabs where any bad actor can use for any nefarious purpose. So that means that the images and the videos that are being captured of children nationwide and right here in Costa Mesa can be used for any such nefarious purpose. Now, I've heard your questions. I know that many of you are concerned about the numerous loopholes that FLOC could potentially use with a contract as it currently stands. I urge you to consider that regardless of the potential benefits of FLOCs, Data and technology, none of them are worth the potential risks of the movements and likeness of children being captured and used for any purpose. I urge you to consider that regardless of the numerous amendments you may make to the contract, Nevertheless, it would fall on a private, profit-driven company to protect this data, not on you all who are public servants. We cannot trust ALPR companies to keep the images they capture safe. I urge you to not only cancel the flaw contract, but to never again even consider any contract with any company that uses ALPRs. The future of the children in our community is at stake. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Amy. I am a resident from Costa Mesa since 2022 and I am from underground grid. I am here to say flock safety cameras should be removed from Costa Mesa because they raise serious concerns about privacy, government surveillance and the potential misuse of personal data. These cameras collect license plate information on thousands of drivers, including people who have done nothing wrong. creating a record of where they travel and when. I think this type of surveillance infringes on civil liberties and could allow sensitive information to be shared with outside agencies without sufficient oversight. Recent concerns in California over data sharing and privacy have led some cities and law enforcement agencies to pause or discontinue their use of flock cameras while stronger safeguards are considered. Costa Mesa should invest in strategies that strengthen community trust without relying on technology that tracks the movements of law-abiding residents. Removing the cameras will demonstrate the city's commitment to privacy, transparency, and responsible use of surveillance technology. Another concern I have is how this technology can affect vulnerable communities. Although vlog cameras are intended to assist with criminal investigations, the data they collect can be shared with other law enforcement agencies under certain circumstances. This raises concerns that information could contribute to immigration enforcement activities involving ICE or make immigrant families feel that their everyday movements are being monitored. Even if someone has done nothing wrong, the possibility of being tracked can create fear and discourage people from reporting crimes, seeking help, or participating in their community. I believe public safety works best when everyone feels safe interacting with law enforcement without worrying that surveillance technology could be used in ways that extend beyond its original purpose. Oh, thank you.

Good evening mayor and city council members. My name is Leslie and I'm a junior in the NMUSD and I'm part of ROC and I'm here today to ask you remove flock safety cameras from our city. Flock cameras are not what our community needs. Constant 24-7 surveillance does not create a real safety. Watching people everywhere they go does not solve the root cause of crime. It simply creates a community where innocent people are monitored every day. Real public safety comes from investing in people, not surveillance. Imagine if the money spent on these cameras were invested in programs for the youth. This gives young people opportunities and strengthens our neighborhoods. Many residents are also concerned about privacy. Every car that passes these cameras has its license plate recorded, even if the driver has done absolutely nothing wrong. No one should have to feel like they are being tracked every day, every time they go to work, school, church or visit their family. We should not normalize constant surveillance for many immigrant families. These cameras create another layer of fear. We do not have control over how this data may be shared or used in the future. While these cameras may be installed for local public safety, We worry that this information collected through surveillance systems could eventually be assessed by federal agencies, including immigration authorities. No one should have to live with that fear. We all want safer neighborhoods, but safety is not measured by the number of cameras on our streets. Safety is measured by whether families feel supported and whether young people have opportunities. Because of this, I urge the city council to remove flat cameras and redirect those resources toward programs that invest in our people instead of expanding surveillance. Let's invest in our community and the youth.

Thank you for your time.

This may be hyperbolic, but it's my history and it's my truth. I believe I'm the only one in this room who was born in a fascist dictatorship. I believe I'm the only one in this room whose grandfather was marched to a firing squad by communist police, whose father was sentenced to death in absentia, by communist police. I'm the only one in this room who has lived for months at a time in communist dictatorships. I'm the only one in this room who has traveled to East Berlin during communist dictatorship. I'm the only one in this room who was followed by SS, by communist police. I'm the only one in this room who has taught students in a high school German class about state sponsored surveillance. State security. This may be hyperbolic, but it's my truth. I heard recently that Kash Patel is traveling to Russia in October, just before our general election, to meet with the FSB. This is Russia, Russia, Russia all over again. I was born in a fascist dictatorship, Germany. I don't want to die in one. Cancel flock.

Here's what you're going to do. You can clap, but I tell you what, Madam Clark, when one person stops, start the time on the other person.

Go. My name is Rachel. I have a presentation for the overhead slide. If. Okay, good evening. My name is Rachel. I'm a resident of Costa Mesa. I'm here to ask you to cancel the flock contract and keep mass surveillance out of Costa Mesa. Um, I appreciate the presentation that was made tonight and the audits that they're doing with our local police access. The staff report for this agenda item states that no Costa Mesa data has been shared with out of state or federal agencies. I believe that they have never enabled the national lookup settings, but claiming that no Costa Mesa data has ever been shared with outside agencies after private citizens have found records showing otherwise, this claim is absolutely meaningless without solid evidence, and I have seen none of that tonight. Next slide, please. We have documented surges made by Costa Mesa police for outside agencies. We have documented proof that Costa Mesa has sharing agreements with Anaheim, El Cajon, now canceled, thank you, the NCIRC, and the Orange County and Riverside County Sheriff's Departments. Journalists have uncovered misuse of ALPR data from all of these organizations. Council needs to understand that when we share with another agency, they can and do run illegal searches on our data. Costa Mesa PD has refused to provide audit and safety logs to prove their claims. They want to track people, they want to track vehicles, and yet they don't want to be held accountable. Ultimately, both the Costa Mesa Police Department and the City Council are responsible for how Costa Mesa uses the system and how you allow others to use the system. Next slide, please. And let's briefly talk about Flock the company. I do not want my tax dollars going toward Flock. Their position is technology is neutral and their customers decide how to use it quote unquote according to their values. So the values of the current administration and the Texas and Florida governments, their values are literally getting people killed. Phloxel's ALPR cameras and even the more advanced surveillance like Condor, which I think you've heard about some tonight, the facial recognition, gate recognition, et cetera, to places like Texas and Florida. They seem to be okay with that. I am not okay with that. Next slide, please. The choices that you make here tonight will help shape our future, not just in Costa Mesa, but across the country. Flock would have you believe that dragnet surveillance is inevitable. That is not true. It is not inevitable. We ask you to end the Flock contract and not replace them with another ALPR vendor. Thank you.

Good evening, council members. My name is Skylar Toma. I live across the bay in Newport Beach. I come here every week for shopping, dining, et cetera. I actually biked here from Newport Beach this afternoon, and I parked my bike below a camera at the CMPD building because I know who runs it. I trust them. I trust that they have the right incentives to serve the public. I'm speaking tonight to cancel the flock contract because their incentives are profit, not actually public safety. It's been pointed out that FLOC will share data if legally required. That's been going around a lot. My hometown of San Francisco had the same protections under the same California laws. And in 2024 and 2025, they had 1.6 million searches from out-of-state agencies. And yes, that did include ICE and DHS. Now, I recognize that the city and the CMPD have made promises about this, and I trust that they have good intent behind those promises. But at the end of the day, Flock doesn't care about that intent. They don't care if bad actors at any number of state or local agencies that we do have established relationships with get access to our data improperly. They care about collecting as much of our data as possible, storing it on their own servers, and selling it to the highest bidder. We are not their customers, we are their product. And that is why I do not trust the in good faith clause that Councilman Gamedos pointed out earlier. And as you can see, I don't think your constituents do either. So this month, the LAPD decided to let their contract with Flock expire. Now, part of the reason I live here, in addition to my work, is because I feel safer in Costa Mesa than in L.A. And that's been true for years before the flock cameras were first deployed here. So a city that is far less safe than Costa Mesa decided that the benefits, quote unquote, of ALPRs are not worth the risk to citizens' privacy. I think Costa Mesa can do the same. So please vote to cancel this flock contract and build a public safety system that does not rely on an unaccountable company full of vulnerabilities that have talked about and will be talked about ad nauseum tonight. Thank you.

Good evening, City Council. I am a resident college student and part of Resilience OC in Costa Mesa, and I'm here to express my concerns about the growing use of flaw cameras in our community. I understand that these cameras are intended to help law enforcement solve crimes and improve public safety. However, we must also consider the impact they have on privacy and freedom of residents who have done absolutely nothing wrong. Flaw cameras continuously collect and store information about vehicles, including license plate numbers, locations, and travel patterns. As a result, ordinary people can have their daily movements recorded without their knowledge or consent. This creates a system of mass surveillance that many residents find uncomfortable or intrusive. Another concern is where these cameras are being installed. Many residents have noticed that flawed cameras appear to be concentrated in neighborhoods with larger Latino and minority populations in Costa Mesa. Whether intentional or not, this creates a perception that certain communities are being subjected to greater surveillance than others. I also believe we should consider whether these funds could be better invested in programs that address the root cause of crime and strengthen our community. Instead of expanding surveillance technology, the city could invest in youth programs, after-school activities, mentorship opportunities, mental health resources, community centers, and other services that provide the community with support, opportunities, and safe spaces to grow. These investments help build stronger communities and create long-term public safety benefits without compromising residents' I urge the City Council to carefully evaluate whether these cameras truly provide benefits that outweigh the risks to privacy and civil liberties and public trust. Our community deserves safety, but it also deserves accountability, transparency, and respect for individual rights. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Hi, everybody, and thank you for every single community member who took the time out of their super busy schedules to show up today. My name is Vidhi. I'm a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, and I'm a resident of the South Coast metro area. I'm commenting today to urge Costa Mesa City Council to say no to mass surveillance and end its contract with Flock. Personally, I cannot fathom why this contract was even entertained to begin with, let alone recommended to be renewed. The mass surveillance enabled by these cameras has absolutely no tangible benefit to the working people of Costa Mesa. Not only was this data used to stalk women For no reason, right here in Costa Mesa, the data that these cameras collect nationwide is being shared illegally with ICE and Border Patrol, who just this week have murdered two completely innocent men whose names were Lorenzo Salgado Araujo and Juan Sebastian Guerrero. Costa Mesa... Yes, shame. Costa Mesa has paid roughly $450,000 in tax dollars, our money, to install cameras, train Phlox AI, access the data, and share our movements without any warrant or consent given. And for what? Finding more ways to send people to private prisons run by billionaires and putting more of our money into their pockets? No way. Here's a thought. Instead of finding more ways to infringe on the rights of our community, try actually investing in its future. You could have made the choice to use our money to invest in secure jobs, fund schools, help small businesses, build affordable housing, expand public transportation, renew our infrastructure, you name it. You could have built a better future for the working people that actually make Costa Mesa a great community to live in. But instead, our money went into the pockets of a billionaire who probably couldn't even point out Costa Mesa on a map. much less send someone to show up here and be accountable to the people they're taking money from. Stop giving our money to these parasitic billionaires who will stop at nothing, even our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, to squeeze more money out of working people and get Flock and all of ALPR out of Costa Mesa now.

Hi, good evening, everyone. Hi, my name is Ines. I'm a resident of Costa Mesa for six years. I'm here to ask if you can remove flog from the streets or from community. I feel really uncomfortable in my privacy right now. Now, technology is not safe. How do I know that information will be not released to be part of the scammers? I mean, it's just for rape people. Also, we don't have a lot that support my privacy. It doesn't support anything you guys say this night. Well, I'm worried about my information to be released to ICE. We don't know what information giving to ICE. How do I know front company is selling our information, means using our information? Please ask you, ask you flock out of community. I don't feel comfortable the police will have not control our data. Please, thank you.

Hello. Good evening, Mayor Stevens and the Costa Mesa City Council. My name is Zoe McEwen. I've been a Costa Mesa resident for nearly a year. I love it here. I care about this city. And as a concerned citizen, I'm urging you to vote against renewing the city's contract with flock safety. I understand why some believe the cameras are net positive, offering resources to the police department and helping reduce crime. I appreciate the difficulty of balancing public safety with civil liberties. However, I believe flock ALPR cameras ask residents to give up too much privacy without informed consent. There are aspects of the staff report that deeply concern me. A Costa Mesa police officer used flock cameras and other databases to stalk his ex-partner and his own wife. He pleaded guilty to unauthorized use of surveillance technology after persecutors found his use was tied to personal reasons, not legitimate police work. This illustrates that Flock technology can be abused by those most trusted to use it responsibly. Additionally, Flock has a history of privacy sharing failures that have affected cities across California. Data leaks are not hypothetical, they have already happened. Additionally, these cameras don't just capture criminals. They're constantly scanning, recording, and storing the information of everyday Costa Mesa residents. While reducing crime is important, the number of arrests does not prove that ALPR cameras are necessary. The fact that flock cameras were involved in an investigation does not in itself demonstrate that those arrests could not have happened without them. We all expect our personal movements not to be tracked by default. ALPR cameras create the possibility that our everyday movements can be monitored, including where we worship, seek medical care, attend political events, or visit family. The use of intense surveillance technology changes the relationship and trust between citizens and their government. I urge the mayor and the city council to consider whether this technology is helping build the city we want. Public safety should not come at the expense of our civil liberties. Please vote against renewing the contract. Thank you. .

Corrido, porque luego se me va la inspiración de lo que digo cuando me dicen ustedes, espérese para que traduzca. Ya hablé con ella.

Good evening, my name is Juana Trejo and I'm just going to speak continuously because I don't want the inspiration that I have speaking to her now when you always tell me to kind of stop. So I've already spoken to her about it.

Bueno, dice las cámaras de seguridad de FLOG no violan la cuarta enmienda por el simple hecho de tomar fotos en la vía pública. sino por crear una red de vigilancia masiva que rastrea de forma prolongada, automatizada y sin orden judicial los movimientos diarios de los ciudadanos. A mí me hubiera encantado que algunos de ustedes les preguntaran a ellos, ¿están compartiendo nuestros datos? Pero no preguntaron, ¿también están compartiendo los datos de las personas que no tienen un estatus migratorio? ¿Por qué no nos incluyen también en eso? Nosotros también somos contribuyentes. Y hay veces que nosotros hemos trabajado mucho tiempo con el departamento de policía tratando de que haya una comunicación de confianza con nuestra comunidad. Ahorita, cuando ven un policía en las comunidades, alguien dice, ¿a quién mataron para que esté la policía aquí presente?,

No porque existan esas cámaras quiere decir que han parado los crímenes en nuestras comunidades.

Si ustedes no han escuchado reportes de nuestras comunidades, es porque ya no hay confianza, ya hay temor hacia los agentes de policía. La otra vez yo fui con una compañera a un evento y cuando ella vio que iba un oficial de policía al lado de nosotros empezó a temblar. Yo le dije, ah, quiero pensar que tiene récord criminal. No, no tiene licencia. Sí. Le dije, ¿por qué tienes esa actitud? Dijo, porque yo no confío en ellos. Ellos ya no me dan seguridad. Ellos están para atacar siempre a la comunidad por nuestro aspecto latino. Tenemos reportes de vidas que se han perdido y de crímenes que no se han reportado porque no hay confianza. No hay confianza en nuestros representantes públicos, no hay confianza en la policía y eso nos duele. Porque en manos de quién estamos nosotros. ¿A quién le importa lo que estamos viviendo en nuestras comunidades? Que nos está costando mucho trabajo sobrevivir porque ya no vivimos. Estamos viendo, y no se vayan tan lejos, hagan una llamadita a la ciudad de Los Angeles porque allí ya fue rechazado el contrato con esta compañía de FLOG. Y hay testimonios donde se han perdido vidas. Entonces, por favor, yo no sé qué fue lo que les inspiró a ustedes estar aquí representando a qué clase de gente. Pero nosotros también somos seres humanos y merecemos vivir con dignidad y respeto. Porque la vida de nosotros estamos viendo que ya no vale nada para nadie.

So it says here that safety cameras for flock safety do not violate the Fourth Amendment just because they're taking pictures of people in the public right away. But they do create a mass surveillance network that keeps record through a prolonged period of time and automized and without any judicial warrant. It keeps track of the daily movements of its citizens. So have you ever asked them who they're sharing our data with? I bet you didn't. Have you ever asked also if they're sharing the immigration status of these people? So my question is, why not think about us? Why not include us? We as a community have worked really hard and spent a lot of time with the police department to try to build a relationship based on trust and communication with the community. So now what's happening is that the police is showing up and people in the community are just saying, oh, well, who got killed? Why is the police here? Because there is no longer any trust. And cameras does not equal the crime having stopped. You haven't heard of reports of crime because we no longer trust or communicate with the police department. I had a colleague who I went to an event with and the police pulled up next to us and she got really nervous and I told her, do you have a criminal record? She said, no. Do you not have a driver's license? She said, no. And I said, well, why do you have that attitude? And she said, I don't feel safe. They're constantly attacking our community just based on the fact that we're Latino. There's been reports of people who have lost lives. And these reports have not, you haven't heard of these because we no longer trust the police or our public elected officials. So I guess who cares what we lived through? We've had a very difficult time to survive and what we lived through, and now we're having to do it again. And really, you don't even have to go that far. You can just call up Los Angeles and see that they've already rejected the contract they had with Flock because there's been testimonies of lives that have been lost to this because of this. So I'm just wondering what inspired you all to back these kind of people? Thanks. We are human beings and we deserve respect.

That's six minutes. Yes.

Good evening. I'll let it. GOOD EVENING, COASTA MESA CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS ADAM FRASER. I'M 27 YEARS OLD AND FOR MOST OF THOSE 27 YEARS I HAVE BEEN A RESIDENT OF COASTA MESA DESPITE A BRIEF FLING WITH THE CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO BUT IT WAS COLLEGE AND I WAS EXPERIMENTING. I don't joke about what we're here to talk about today because I think it's funny or anything. I want you guys to listen to me and hear me when I say that flock does not make the residents feel comfortable. I mean, I've been here, I grew up here, and I always felt safe. I mean, me and my friends would walk, you know, all the way to South Coast. We'd walk to T-Winkle. We always felt safe on these streets. We... we never felt in danger. The last few years driving on the streets, I don't feel particularly safer. It doesn't make me feel good when I drive past a flock camera on Fairview. It makes me think, If someone wants to, you know, if a police officer or even like our council member Reynolds said, whoever the thousands of people that have access to this data can just look up, maybe, you know, they saw someone that they thought was cute and now they're stalking these people. I think it's wrong. I think it's a violation of our privacy and it doesn't make me feel protected. It definitely does not serve. Thank you.

I've been a resident for more than 35 years here in Costa Mesa. And the truth is, we've felt free for years. But now our community is feeling attacked. Hoy estoy aquí para que escuchen mi voz, ya que alguien y todos ustedes han dicho que nuestra voz tiene poder, que la voz del pueblo tiene poder. Y hoy queremos ver que de verdad nuestra voz tiene poder. Hay familias que se sienten que están inmandiendo su privacidad y puede resultar en la separación de familias inocentes. Nuestra comunidad necesita sentirse segura y libre y de vivir sin miedo a estas cámaras, ¿Por qué no mejor invertir en nuestros jóvenes? Tenemos muchos jóvenes en Costa Mesa, en academias de policías, en deportes. Nuestros jóvenes necesitan más apoyo. Nuestra comunidad, nuestra ciudad de Costa Mesa no necesita cámaras vlog. Necesita más policías en bicicletas y caminando en nuestra comunidad. Que nuestros jóvenes y nosotros los conozcamos. Dios bendiga Costa Mesa. Gracias.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Carmen Ramirez, and good evening to Mayor and all council members. I've been a Costa Mesa resident for over 35 years, and honestly, I want to say that we used to live freely years ago, but now our community is feeling attacked. Today, I'm here to have my voice be heard, because you've all said that voice is power, and the community has power in their voice, so I want to share that power today. There are families who feel like their privacy has been invaded and this could lead to innocent people and families being separated. And instead of investing in this program, why not invest in the youth? Why not invest in the police academy for youths or youths that are in sports? We could invest in them. Our youth needs our investment. So Costa Mesa does not need more flock cameras. They need more police officers on the ground, on bicycles, walking around the community and getting to know us face to face. So with that, God bless Costa Mesa. Thank you.

Good evening, Council. My name is Gustavo. I am with Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development. So we do work in Anaheim and Santana, but all over OC. And I actually wanted to fact check one of the comments. I believe it was Gameros that said, do they just track vehicles? And one of the PD said that they don't. But there is a news article, California cops tracked protesters using orange vehicles. Orange Sheriff's Flock System, and it's by Inadverted News, so you guys could look it up. It said, cops across the CA access the Orange County Sheriff's Department flock safety automatic license plate reader system at least 145 times to track protesters within the span of a year and seven months. 11 California police agencies, one as far as Dolly City, searched for protesters using OCSD's flock data, which contained license plate numbers, timestamps, locations, and photos of vehicles and their surroundings. The majority of these dates that police searched for people landed directly on or around dates when protesters against ICE were held. The reasons, and then there was another comment about logging the reason why they're accessing the flock cameras, and they also made comment that they were unspecific comments that included protest, ICE protest, Jean Autry protest and other vague terms. Cops are required by state law to list the reason for searching through the flock system. But the data shows that even beyond tracking people engaged in First Amendment activities, police have been logging their reasons using very vague one-word responses. So that's something that we need to consider as well. Costa Mesa can set the example. Tonight because we believe this council can do something that other OC cities haven't done When residents raise a documented local harm their City Council should listen and should act Other Orange County cities are watching what happens here change is possible when organizers residents and Council members are willing to agree on what's actually best for the people who live here not just convenient and not just what's convenient to leave in place. I also wanted to make a comment about when we do go out in public, I think it's fair to assume that we would like privacy, even though we're not given privacy. What are we going to do, stay home all day? You guys are out. We have groceries. We have plans. We go city to city. That's unrealistic to stay in our house. So yeah, thank you.

Hi, my name is Julian. I grew up around the corner. I'm a journalism student. And as a journalism student, one of the very first things you learn is you ask before you film somebody. It's not just about the law. It's about respect for people's dignity. The question of whether the flock contract should be renewed is a question of consent. It's a question of the consent of the people which has been continually violated. Many people, like myself, didn't even know about the cameras until they were already everywhere watching us all the time. We were never given a choice in this matter. At every stage, Flock, the company, avoids transparency while demanding total subservience. Even after this whole presentation, does anybody in here know what it looks like when people are actually watching the screens? What are they accessing? We saw pictures, we don't know what the actual screen of people looking at it looks like. Was it anywhere? No. Flock CEO Garrett Langley described people who oppose his system last year as terrorists. As you look out around you, do you look at your constituents who want privacy, who are concerned about where the money of the city is going? Do you call these people terrorists as they would? I wouldn't allow a company that will so quickly make a judgment on so many people be involved with the law. I don't think they have the best interest of the city in mind, and I don't think they have the best interest of the people in mind. And I want to just quickly say, I did a little bit of math after looking up here. It said 82 crimes were listed as completely solved by ALPRs. If we go on a low end of the average crimes in Costa Mesa per year, we're looking at about 4,000-ish. That's at a near maximum 2% of crimes solved by this. Is that worth this? Is that worth the money? Is it? Like, is it worth it? I don't think it is. And to the police department, you guys came here tonight. They did not come with you. They left you all on your own to answer all these questions. They didn't help you out. I don't think they sound like a good partner for the future. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Daniel Negrete, and I'm here on behalf of the Student Civil Liberties Union. The proliferation of government snooping and data collecting is threatening to destroy our traditional freedoms. Government agencies seem to be competing to compile the most extensive set dossiers of American citizens. Computerization of records makes it possible to create cradle to grave record profiles of every American. What you just heard was the argument in favor of amending the state constitution to list privacy as an explicit right in the 1972 voter guide, since the Supreme Court has held, quote, individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their movements, end quote, and that, quote, a person does not surrender all forced amendment protections by venturing into the public sphere, end quote. Yet the city attorney incorrectly claims that one's expectation of privacy in public exists only in very limited cases. Are you stuck on 20th century force amendment jurisprudence? Have you read Jones, Kelo, Carpenter, Leaders of a Beautiful America, or last one's Supreme Court opinion in Chantry? Or any force amendment case since your time in law school? An investigation recently revealed that the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center conducted unauthorized searches across their user pool. Public records show Costa Mesa is one of these agencies. City Attorney Barlow, has the city started its investigation? Once done, will it post notice of breach as required by statute? California's First District Court of Appeals in Bartholomew held that harm under SB 34 does not require monetary loss. Rather, statutory violations alone can provide that standing. Councilmember Gomeros, you asked what happens if the agency does not break the law, but rather its policy. Such would be a violation of the law in itself, as statute requires compliance with its listed policy. And it requires that the administrator itself ensures that, and holds it personally liable. The city's contract with Flock not only infringes its citizens' constitutional interest, it exposes the city to massive liability. And now, to some of the lovely salesmen in front of these contentions. One, that Flock does not use facial recognition. Flock's own patent states, quote, with the relevant footage returned, investigators may be able to identify the face of the driver and that was facial recognition data points. The investigators may be able to query the system for any footage having a person with matching face recognition data points. Two, that the system does not capture personal information. Once again, quote, for example, if the object class is that of a human being, then the object detection module may further analyze the image using a neural network module configured to identify different classes of people. For example, male, female, race, et cetera, in a neural network for gauging height and weight, end quote. And third, that they ensure authorized use of data and that Flock provides the mechanism for that. FLOC is facing dozens of class action lawsuits across the country for negligence and outright support of prohibited use. Earlier last year, FLOC pushed every Californian's age and disease data to their nationwide database for months, which they then claimed they were not aware of.

Next, next, excuse me. Your time is up, next.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. My name is Emelyn. I'm a college student. I've been living in the city of Costa Mesa for almost my whole life, a young Latina woman and also a member of Resilience Orange County. I understand that flock cameras are presented as a public safety tool, but we also need to recognize the harm that constant surveillance can cause, especially when these cameras are concentrated in neighborhoods where many Latino families live. One was placed directly outside my house. It's a school. There's a school there, right? Especially where that can make residents feel targeted and watched rather than protected. This concern is not hypothetical. A former Costa Mesa police officer pleaded guilty after using law enforcement tools, including flock license plate readers, to track his wife, his mistress, and other people connected to them. He also admitted to violating a restraining order. I've heard the update. He was placed on administrative leave and I don't know if that makes me feel any safer with him still being the possibility of coming back. What makes these cases like these especially alarming is that these are not strangers or obvious bad actors. They are people who walk among us, wear a badge, and are trusted with access to powerful technology. The community places its trust in them to protect us. Yet in these cases, that trust was used against the very people they were supposed to be keeping safe. This was also not an isolated incident. The Institute of Justice identified at least 24 reported cases across the country involving officers using license plate readers systems to monitor romantic partners, former partners, or other people for personal reasons. The report explains that most of these cases were not discovered through internal safeguards. Instead, the behavior came from to light only after victims reported that they were being stalked. As a young woman, this is deeply concerning to me. A system that records where people travel can become extremely dangerous when it's accessed by someone who wants to control, intimidate, or harm another person. Women, survivors of domestic violence, immigrants, and communities that already experience over-policing may face that greatest risk. Constant monitoring can do more harm than good by creating fear and weakening trust between residents and the city. People should be able to drive to work, visit family, attend a protest without feeling like their movements are being tracked and stored. I ask the council not to expand flock surveillance and consider ending its use. True public safety should be built through trust, accountability, youth programs, housing, and community resources, not constant surveillance. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Langan Lei, and I'm with the LGBTQ Center OC, working within the Immigration Resources Department. I am here to share our concern about our city's contract with FLOC, given the security, privacy, and safety concerns of our communities, and respectfully urge the Council to reconsider Costa Mesa's contract with FLOC. Recent reported incidents, including alleged misuse by a Costa Mesa police officer and a false arrest in San Diego following an inaccurate license plate read, show the serious harm that can occur without strong oversight. These risks fall especially heavily on immigrants, LGBTQ plus people, demonstrators and other historically over-surveilled communities. Reports that federal agencies, including ICE, CBP and DHS, have access to local flock networks, also raise concerns about how residents' movements and personal information may be shared. Costa Mesa's immigrants and LGBTQ residents are essential to the city's fabric. We ask the council to prioritize their safety and privacy by reconsidering this contract and requiring transparency, accountability, clear limits, and meaningful public oversight. Thank you.

Good evening, City Council and Mayor. My name is Christian, community organizer with Resilience OC and Costa Mesa Unidos. Today we're here to call on the City Council to cancel the FLOC contract and not to pursue any future contracts with any other automatic license plate reader companies. The current federal administration time and time again has said that they are only going after criminals We have seen that here in our own community for that to be false. They have taken gardeners working, jornaleros looking for work, and family members on their way to work in the mornings. We cannot allow this tool to continue to operate when there is potential for it to be misused by federal immigration agencies. These cameras are one piece of the larger deportation system that has been severely expanded under the current federal administration. Today, the city council has the opportunity to stand against the unjust detainment of our immigrant family members and take a step to not contribute to the expansion of mass surveillance in our community. The approximately $150,000 that is annually spent on this contract could be better spent on investing in the community. About a year ago, the City Council approved a legal defense fund for those impacted by unjust immigration enforcement, becoming the second city in the county to do so, and setting an example for other cities to follow. We want to see the city continue to stand with the immigrant community and get Flock out of Costa Mesa. Thank you.

Hello City Council, my name is Tanya Navarro and I'm the Organizing Director with Chispa. We've heard a lot about FLOC today and I want to touch on your role as the City Council. All of you are elected to represent your constituents and I hear your constituents in this room, they filled up this entire chamber and they filled up the overflow room and those are the people who could make it in person, who found out about this probably online. There was also a petition that was circulated where over 320 people signed within the last couple of weeks. I'm sure you received a few emails about that. This council is making a decision today and in the future about prioritizing what their community is clearly demanding from them or prioritizing a private company that has predatory practices around data. will be watching your decision today and acting accordingly. This city has a duty to represent their constituents, and this council opted every single resident and visitor into a city-wide surveillance system without any meaningful public consent or outreach. You claim that it's going to make them safer, but many of them told you today that they don't feel safe with this technology and they don't want it. Every single license plate that you scan, every movement that's logged, and every trip that is stored for future searches comes at a cost, and it comes with erosion of freedom. This isn't just about cameras on poles, it's about normalizing a future where everyone is tracked and everyone is treated as a potential suspect. Today, in this political climate, It is increasingly and incredibly irresponsible to collect and retain data on community members and their movement patterns when we're seeing our immigrant communities hunted and in some cases killed. We're seeing protesters labeled as terrorists for disagreeing with the current administration. We're seeing the black community be increasingly criminalized and over-policed and we're seeing anti-Muslim sentiments and the list only grows. If this council votes to continue their FLOC contract, do not claim to stand with our communities. Do not claim to be unaware when it comes out that this data can and will be weaponized against us and you all. The question today is...

Excuse me, your time is up.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Carla Hernandez y la verdad estoy tristemente decepcionada de Costa Mesa porque he vivido por muchos años aquí y no es justo que las personas que supuestamente pusieron estas cámaras no estén presentes para contestar todas sus preguntas. Y quiero dejarles algo muy claro que gracias a estas cámaras he tenido que encerrar a mis hijos en mi casa casi las 24 horas del día. Y no se me hace justo que un niño de 7 años tiene que pasar en la casa todo el día, ya no corre, ya no juega, gracias a las cámaras y a inmigración que están trayendo aquí. Y no es justo que tenga que encerrar a mi niño de 7 años. Ustedes tienen hijos y yo pienso que no dejarían a su hijo sin correr todo el día, todo porque las cámaras y inmigración nos están invadiendo en esta ciudad. Gracias.

Good evening. My name is Carla Hernandez, and I'm honestly really sad and really disappointed. I've lived in the city for many years, and I honestly don't think it's fair that the people who came and installed these cameras are not here to answer the many questions we have. Thanks to all the cameras that are around and the increased immigration, I've had to have my kids basically at home for basically 24 hours out of the day and I just don't think that it's fair for a seven-year-old to be at home all day. He no longer goes out for runs, no longer goes out to play because of the increased immigration presence here. I just don't think it's fair for a seven-year-old child to live that way. And if you have children, and I know that you do, I don't think that you would like them living that way. And all that is because of the cameras and the immigration that has been coming here. And so I hope that that touches your heart some. If your child had to live that way, you would not like it at all. So I just don't think that my child is, it's fair for him to be living that way. So it's just not good. and I would like for him to have a happy life and a good life. Thank you.

Excuse me. I got to get your mic on. Oh, sorry. Now you're good.

Good evening, Council. Allison from District 4. We've heard a lot of misleading representations of FLOC's technology tonight. It isn't a single fleeting photograph of a license plate. It captures such great detail that FLOC calls it a vehicle fingerprint. And we're captured indiscriminately, 24-7, without a warrant or probable cause and not even reasonable suspicion. A legitimate law enforcement purpose is not a real legal standard and they know that. Our patterns of life are being tracked and monitored continuously and retroactively with no legal basis as to why it is needed. This is mass surveillance infrastructure and our data is the asset. The city refuses to release flock audit logs in response to public record requests, but expects us to believe that their categorical statement that no Costa Mesa data has been shared with out-of-state or federal agencies. We presented evidence that Costa Mesa PD made searches in other cities' flock databases for HSI and ATF, which is side door access. The department claims to conduct sufficient audits, yet won't produce them while other cities in the region have. They have the burden of proof, not us. Law enforcement's claim that Falk helps solve and reduce crime are anecdotal and unknowable. They failed to cite any independent studies showing that ALPR deployments reduce crime. It's been around since the 80s. That's because there aren't any. In fact, studies have shown that although ALPR may increase the rate at which police detect stolen vehicles and identify individuals with warrants, they yield limited to no statistically significant reductions in overall neighborhood crime rates. The only thing the police have established is that they can't be trusted with this technology and that they need help catching criminals like Officer Josette. It took them six months to catch the officer who was eventually convicted for stalking, but when they put him on leave, they let him continue to commit those very crimes using Flock six months later. There are at least 70 known cases across 28 states of police abuse of ALPR technology. Existing laws didn't stop them. Why don't we invest in addressing the root causes of crime instead of treating everyone like criminals? Police don't get to define safety. The community gets to decide what safety looks like to them. We are trying to tell you that AI-powered mass surveillance does not make the community feel safe. And just because mass surveillance is now made easier with AI does not mean our privacy rights automatically erode as a result. Replacing the vendor or negotiation of guardrails will not prevent these inescapable harms. The only data that is safe is the data that is not collected. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Hi, good evening. My name is Maricela Lopez, and thank you for being here tonight. I'm just going to be very brief. In the presentation, I saw that one of the corporations that uses these cameras is Home Depot. And curiously, it was June of last year where we started having ICE raids there. So is that just pure coincidence because our community was violently harmed as well as stuck there. So I wonder if that's just a coincidence or is that how it's being used? Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for agendizing ending the Flock contract and restoring American virtue to Costa Mesa with the overwhelming support of our residents. Everyone here wants public safety. We the people have a right to decide the value of liberty in pursuit of that. Bewley disingenuously asks about privacy when filming in public. Are you suggesting it's legal to stalk you with a camera anytime you're out in public? Is it okay to film you as you go about your day everywhere you go on the way home that's acceptable to you? This is what Flock does to all of us. It doesn't take a genius to see how that's useful for criminal investigations, but it apparently takes a Buley to condescend about the potential harm. The fact you're ignorant enough to argue that is ridiculous. I think you should resign and you will not be my mayor. A direct threat to public safety is sometimes an exception to privacy rights. Flock abuses that loophole and expands it to include all of us as potential threats with dragnet surveillance. Surely if the police could read every single post letter, they might solve some additional crime and also commit crimes against all of us as humans and against the very foundational principles that American democracy stands on. There is in fact one place you should expect every letter you write is open and read. It's not in public, it's in prison. Bewley's prison is not the community I want to build. I would not inflict this on my neighbors if it solved my own murder. The police are a hammer in pursuit of public safety and Flock has sold them a method for making nails of all of us. Transitioning us and dehumanizing us from residents and visitors to suspects and potential suspects. They did it by misleading you, like with that falsehood-riddled presentation, evidenced by your continued misunderstanding of the basic principles of its use, despite that knowledge being publicly available in the community and well-publicized by reputable orgs like the ACLU, who wrote directly to you about this. There's a reason in America police don't have carte blanche authority to search every house and stop every car. It's because it's the responsibility of the people to determine the scope of police power and the value of our liberties. Flock clearly and grossly surpasses the public's tolerance for such intrusions. This meeting had almost 50 pages of emails sent in, people citing like it's a research paper to indicate to you how abusive this technology is. Not one of them asking to keep mass surveillance. The will of the people is unambiguous and overwhelming and demanding an end to flock, not improving the contract, not installing guardrails. Flock use is abuse.

Good evening, council. My name is Brooke. I'm a 10-year resident of Costa Mesa. I am a constituent of District 1. Councilmember Bewley, I'm in your district. I'm also an organizer with Food Not Bombs Orange County. We heard the presentation from the police department, and it had some anecdotal evidence that Flock supposedly prevents crime. yet there's no proof of crime prevention. I didn't see anything tangible in that presentation where it's preventing crime. What is tangible and what we do know is there are specific neighborhoods in Costa Mesa that are being tracked. Specific communities are being tracked and there's no way out of those neighborhoods without being tracked. The Chalamar neighborhood in Costa Mesa has one major vehicle entry and exit point at the intersection of Wallace Avenue and Chalamar Drive. All other street exits and pathways are blocked by vehicle barriers, walkways, and fencing. Would it be realistically possible for a resident to drive a vehicle in or out of the Chalamar neighborhood without being tracked by flock? The answer is no. So imagine living in a community or a neighborhood where you're constantly being tracked, especially in today's climate where people are being snatched or murdered by ICE agents and other entities. So I just want you to consider that. There is no way in or out without being tracked. We have no way of knowing Who's looking at the Flock database? Because it's in the cloud. So Flock has the comings and goings. I want to believe our police department would not give information out, but I don't believe a private company would not or use that against the people. You have heard from the community. You've heard from many people here. We do not want flock in Costa Mesa. So I urge you to listen to your residents, your constituents, and the community and cancel the contract now. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Michaela. I have been a resident of Costa Mesa for the past five years. I'm a resident of Lauren Gamaras' district and District 2. Thank you so much for being here and for giving us your time to hear us out. I'm just going to kind of recap on some points that the community has spoken out about. Community trust has been broken. and we want you to vote to end the flock contract with no substitutions and instead invest the money that you would use on this contract on these systems back into the community. I've listed some examples here for you which you can read. Increasing pedestrian safety via road design will greatly decrease accidents and traffic crimes. Investments in programs like education, arts, youth, housing, rent relief, there are so many options that you can take. And we know that there have already been cases where law enforcement has been caught illegally sharing this data, such as in the case of El Cajon. I would hope that the city of Costa Mesa would want to avoid risky situations being involved in lawsuits similar to this. We violated SB 34 and SB 54, and there's a greater risk for that, and not to mention the risk that you have of, you can pinky promise to us that the police won't misuse this data again, but how can we trust that when it took the community calling out attention to these things for you guys to put a presentation together and tell us not to worry? That doesn't really inspire a whole lot of trust. There needs to be actually action that follows up. Next slide, please. Okay, so we have talked a lot about flock, but I'd like to talk a little bit about the US history of mass surveillance. It's a very American thing, dating all the way back to the 1700s with the lantern laws, which required black mixed race and indigenous enslaved people to carry lit lanterns when in the city after sundown and unaccompanied by a white person. 1819, we have the formation of the slave patrols. South Carolina General Assembly enacts a law requiring all white men over the age of 18 to participate in slave patrols. These organized groups of armed men tasked with regulating the activity of slaves and often terrorized black people and raided their homes. Next slide, please. California wiretapping law. The first person convicted was a stockbroker with the Pacific Telegraph Company. He was caught listening to corporate telegraph lines and selling information to stock traders. 1925, the Panopticon. This might be a phrase that many have heard of, invented by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham. It is the basic idea that if everyone is watching each other and there's Big Brother, you know everyone will be on their best behavior. Next slide, please. These are two cases in which the Fourth Amendment was found to have been violated and unlawful. In the case of Kylo versus United States, about thermal imaging devices aimed at a private home from a public street without a warrant. United States versus Jones talks about GPS. That's your time. Next.

Next.

Good evening council members. The CEO of Flock, Garrett Langley, said on camera in a Forbes interview, quote, unfortunately there's terrorist organizations like D-Flock whose primary motivation is chaos. They are closer to Antifa than they are anything else. First off, Antifa is not an organization, it's an ideology. It stands for anti-fascist and every World War II veteran was Antifa. Second, if the CEO of Flock believes those who are anti-fascists are the terrorists, what does that make him? Every constituent you've heard from tonight is a part of a deflock community. He is calling your constituents terrorists. Public safety includes keeping citizens safe from an overreaching government. We've already seen police use Flock to track their exes, We've seen police departments work with ICE, an agency that is murdering American citizens and immigrants alike. They have aimed their guns at people in this room right now. This flock system is national. It only takes one corrupt person with access to flock to leak info and for this data to be used in ways this city never approved but will definitely pay for. By approving flock here in Costa Mesa, you are continuing to put people in danger at the request of self-identifying fascists. If you want safety, put your money into social safety programs and relieve CMPD from having to deal with every single nonviolent crisis. Not every problem needs a person with a gun or a camera. Vote against renewing this contract.

I don't know. Can you hear me now? Okay. Good evening, council members. My name is Sid, and I'm from Sunrise Orange County. I'm speaking on behalf of all my friends here in Costa Mesa against renewal of contracts with ALPRs such as FLOC. Here, let me read a headline that disturbed me and should disturb all of us. Gadget Review reports, flock employees watched kids' gymnastics room to pitch surveillance tech. Corporate workers viewed live feeds of children's gymnastics classes to demonstrate surveillance capabilities to police clients. And let me read one passage from the article, just one. The details uncovered through public records requests by resident Jason Hung-Yar are unsettling. On July 23, 2025, Phlox's Randy Gluck viewed cameras labeled Jim Mendel-1 and Main Pool Right. It's a kiddie pool, by the way. On September 30th, 2025, Vice President Bob Carter accessed a gymnastics camera. My fellow citizens, that's pedophilia. Not only should all flock cameras contracts be canceled, but flock employees should be arrested for their crimes against children. They didn't even show up today. They're hiding their criminal and predatory behavior. This extends to all ALPRs too. Motorola Solutions, Axon, Gene Tech, Leonardo, Neology. Do you think your kids are safe from ALPRs? Think again. End these contracts now or forever be complicit. I want a unanimous vote from this council to say no to ALPRs, not just a majority. Otherwise, Costa Mesa will remember you and will vote you out. Vote no to end all ALPR contracts. Thank you.

Buenas noches, mi nombre es Lucia Mejia. Yo vengo a hablar para que cancelen las cámaras. Yo nomás quiero decirles que piensen también en las personas que andan caminando, que están paradas para cruzar, o los que andan en el bus. Y también hay niños que también se les va a robar su privacidad. Hi, good evening council members.

My name is Lucia Mejia and I've come today to tell you all to cancel the flock cameras. I just want to tell you So think of all the people who walk, who are out walking, who take the bus, and the kids. This is robbing them of their privacy. And I just hope that you make the best decision today from your heart. And God bless you.

Hello. Hello, council members. I'm Raquel. I work in the field of public health, and I'm a member of Sunrise Movement Orange County. I'm asking Costa Mesa to join the other cities that have successfully removed the ALPR cameras and set an example for other cities across Orange County. Mass surveillance does not keep us safe, and it's not worth the cost. These cameras are different than previous cameras we've seen, whether it be red light, speed cameras, et cetera, due to the continuous collection of data. And they put us at risk, especially for communities that have been historically over-policed and surveilled by turning us into products for data that we're told to trust in good faith. CMPD code may state that they don't share the information, but as we've said, FLOC isn't upheld to these same standards. How can we also expect every other PD to keep their police officers accountable? Who's holding FLOC, any of their employees, or the third parties they consult with accountable? We're being told to trust and listen to another company who will not be held accountable after misuse. This retroactive accountability doesn't work. Large corporations have the time, the money, the lawyers to evade the responsibility and instead us, you as city council members, we're going to be the one who will be paying the cost as we're told that surveillance keeps us safe. Why should we have to wait for the harm to occur again in Costa Mesa now that we've already seen it happen here and elsewhere? These cameras can have life-threatening impacts when we've seen wrongful arrests. In addition, the infrastructure depends on AI, which, as we've seen in terms of the development of these data centers, taking our electricity and water, these do not address, as we've said, the primary prevention, the cause of crime. In public health, we discuss about the importance of early intervention. These cameras can't check on our neighbors. These cameras can't help us make car payments. These cameras can't care for our children. They can't provide transportation. The consequences, risks, and usage of these cameras are not worth it. If you really care about the community at large in Costa Mesa and Orange County, you would end the use of flock ALPR and all ALPRs and instead invest the money in our community and not flock. Let us opt out of mass surveillance.

Good evening, council. My name is Gabe. I'm here with Sunrise Orange County, and I'm here today to talk about flock. My grandmother lives here in Costa Mesa, and I've spent a lot of time at local businesses, at South Coast Plaza, at Segerstrom Hall as well. I'm not comfortable with my grandmother or anyone else I've met or hung out with having their privacy violated here in Costa Mesa. As we've heard, there is protocol to protect citizens with how the data is collected and managed, which has been questionable as seen by the extensive questioning by council. I feel that the bigger issue is with the fact that the data is collected at all. From what I understand from the lines of questioning from council, there is a general concern that many of the procedures surrounding Flock are not up to par. As we've seen today, there is a lot of concern about a right to privacy. As a community member, I'm not asking you to commit more money to a new project. I'm simply asking that you restore privacy and dignity to people in Costa Mesa and that you represent the wishes of all these people here and those that cannot be here today and cancel Costa Mesa's flock contract. Thank you.

Hello council. Good evening mayor. Uh, thank you to my brothers, sisters and siblings for speaking up here today. I see a lot of tired faces, but I see also a very energetic line. So thank you so much for still being here. My name is Jackie Rothmeier. I'm the third generation of my family to call Costa Mesa home. And this is my first ever public comment. I am here simply to say I absolutely an unflinchingly opposed flock in our communities and urge you to cancel this contract today. I recall at a previous city council meeting, it was discussed how easily hackable these cameras are. It sees anyone with an internet connection can access camera feeds. The loopholes in our contract are only a small part of the security that is falsely promised by Flock. Your vote on this issue will dictate my decision to vote for anyone's reelection to this council. Thank you for your consideration.

Good evening, Council. My name is Eden, and I've spent my whole life in this city. I was born here. I went to school here, elementary school through a little bit of college. And the flaw cameras have made me feel less safe than ever before in this city. It makes everyone in here who has spoken feel very paranoid. And as my time in this city, I once was one of the little league kids who was terrible, admittedly. I did so many things in this city, and the idea of being watched everywhere is horrifying. We spend over $150,000 a year maintaining and keeping this subscription that has been used by the police to stalk people. And when questioned about it tonight, they could not give consistent answers on whether or not they use it once a day or once every few weeks. We can't, through their own words, it's unsure if we can trust them or Flock themselves based off what they've said about the people who oppose Flock. So I'm hoping that tonight the flock subscription is ended and the money that's used can be refocused into anywhere in the city, such as the pastor who's helping get people off the street who spoke earlier tonight, the Little Leaguers who were here earlier tonight, the Rocks program, which I grew up using to help keep me off the street, and so many other avenues in the city. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Alejandra, and I'm a president of District 6. Thank you for being here to listen to our concerned community. I urge you to vote to cancel the contract with Flock and physically remove Flock cameras from Costa Mesa. Flock is being documented nationwide with a pattern of corporate malfeasance. In Cambridge, Massachusetts, the city terminated their contract with Flock after a material breach of contract. The city states in late October 2025, 16 flock ALPRs that were deployed in the community were deactivated and removed by the city. Later, two cameras were installed by the technicians in late November without the city's awareness. The city is terminating its contract with flock safety. The two cameras have also been removed. In Evanston, Illinois, the city terminated their contract after finding Flock violating state privacy laws. In late September 2025, Flock reinstalled 15 of its 18 ALPRs without the city's permission. Evanston immediately issued a cease and desist order. The final devices were fully removed in March 2026. These are not isolated instances. We cannot allow companies with patterns of corporate malfeasance like Flock to have a contract with our city. Please vote to cancel the Flock contract and physically remove the ALPRs. Flock showing patterns of corporate malfeasance is not acceptable and not to our community's standards. Thank you for listening and for representing our community.

I'm Danny Livingston. I'm a marriage and family therapist here in Costa Mesa at a low-cost clinic called California Family Institute. A key part of my job is helping people to imagine futures that they want to live in and determining how their values can help get them there. What does Flock's presence say about Costa Mesa's values? What does contracting Flock to monitor every person in Costa Mesa say about this city's vision for the future? Flock's responsibility isn't to make Costa Mesa safer, it's to monetize our movements, then deliver the profits to their investors. Their abysmal data privacy practices like the leak this year of 2.3 million flock surveillance logs prompted other cities to immediately cancel their contracts. Their representatives have been blatantly lying to city officials like yourselves, and it happened just this April in Wisconsin. Add this to the recent stalking conviction of CMPD officer Josset, and it's clear how easily Flock can be used to harass and terrorize. Plus, Flock didn't even flag Josset's abuse of the data. It took an internal audit way after the fact to even notice. Even if you believe ALPRs are beneficial, this incident alone should disqualify Flock as a contractor. So what does all this say about the future of Flock, and by extension, Costa Mesa and Vision for us? Well, we don't have to guess. Flock is telling us with the recent actions. In 2022, they were granted US patent 11416545B1 for a system that uses AI to classify people by race, gender, height, weight, and clothing. This isn't just about license plates. They're already deploying advanced surveillance drones. Their Flock Raven audio surveillance has expanded beyond its original purpose, gunfire detection, to identifying human voices. Flock's scope keeps metastasizing. If you choose to renew this contract, you're co-signing and funding Flock's vision for the future, an inescapable, unaccountable surveillance state. I want to ask you directly, is this the future you want to inhabit? Is that the future that you would choose for your families and your neighbors? Please consider the future and then vote to cancel Flock's contract. Thank you. Good evening.

No, no, don't say anything. Why don't we take a 15-minute break? We've been going at it for four hours. So we'll be back at 10.15.

It's past my bedtime.

Thank you.

Okay, call for the question. The motion is to cut time to two minutes.

Kim, can you give a comment on that?

Go ahead. It's not a Brown Act violation. It doesn't matter.

We don't need to respond. Let's go.

Hold on. I asked for Kim. Okay. Wait, hold on. I asked for a city attorney's opinion on it.

Oh, you did? Yes. Okay, sorry. Go ahead.

Respond then. The council may cut off debate, particularly after a prolonged period of time. It could postpone it, and it also has the authority to shorten the time in order to get through the rest of its business.

Okay, call the question.

Okay. Councilmembers, Gamaras and Bewley, please vote.

Does anybody oppose?

I do.

I oppose. You oppose? You don't want to cut it? Okay. Bewley and Gamaras oppose. Anybody else?

I have it, Mr. Motion carries 5-2 with Councilmember Chavez and Gamaras voting no.

Okay. Two minutes. Go. Good evening, members of the Costa Mesa City Council. My name is Kanan Bowie, and I'm currently a high school student in Orange County. I'm here with Sunrise Movement Orange County to urge you to discontinue the use of flock safety cameras and automated license plate readers in Costa Mesa. While I acknowledge these systems are presented as methods to maintain public safety, they infringe on privacy and civil liberties. Citing from the Los Angeles Times, flock safety cameras have collected and stored data on thousands of law-abiding residents and visitors, creating a record of... of where people travel for individualized suspicion, we cannot consent to mass surveillance. The misuse of data starts at the collection and creation of data. There are also concerns about how long this data is retained, who can access it, and how it may be shared with other third-party agendancies. Once the surveillance infrastructure is fully implemented, its use can extend and alter over time in ways the public never intended, which can prove to be distressing for many citizens. Public safety is important, but it should be pursued with methods that are effective, transparent, and respectful of human rights. It should not infringe on natural rights and not invade our privacy. I ask the council to prioritize the privacy and trust of Costa Mesa residents by discontinuing the use of flock cameras and automated license plate readers. Thank you for your time, Costa Mesa City Council Members.

Good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Jocelyn and I'm a resident of District 5. I am urging the council to counsel our contract with Flock. We already know police databases get abused locally. As already discussed, the Costa Mesa officer was caught using law enforcement databases to stalk romantic partners. In Georgia, public records revealed Flock's own staff were caught viewing the camera feeds of children at gymnastics centers and community gyms. For over 19 months, police officers across the state continuously accessed the OC Sheriff's Flock system to track protesters, primarily anti-ice demonstrations. And Flock tracks much more than just license plates. the cameras can record a lot more. So how do we know that flock isn't recording and storing more? We don't. Flock cameras are an extreme invasion of privacy. And while I understand that there is not an expectation of privacy when in a public space, I do think there is an expectation that we are not tracked. Beyond the potential for misuse, cities like Santa Cruz, Mountain View have ended their flock contracts after finding out that data was improperly shared with out-of-state agencies, even with safeguards in place, such as the much cited SB 34, the state law governing use of automated license plate reader data, and other sanctuary laws. Data has ended up in the wrong hands. For example, El Cajon sharing with ICE. And as with all the Doge activities last year's proved, we're not going to be able to stop the sharing of this data even when we want to. If the federal government, if ICE wants this data, they're going to get it. We can say no and fight in court, but for at least 30 days, the data will be on Phlox cloud and it could be out of our hands. As a Santa Cruz mayor warned, Phlox system has enormously big holes. Whether it's misconduct, watching our children or federal data harvesting, the threat outweighs the benefits. I urge us to cancel

My name is Ava Rothenstein, and I'm a college student in the area. I regularly drive down Harbor Boulevard and Newport Boulevard, two streets with multiple flock cameras. I also noticed the local UPS, Vanguard University, and Costa Mesa Post Office have flock cameras nearby. These are important locations for the community, but they are being used as locations of mass surveillance. Everyone's license plates are taken. They're suspected of a crime just by existing in this city. I do not give permission for my vehicle information to be taken, to shop, to see the people I love to live. I must be watched by flock cameras. The information heard tonight about the usage and policy of flock cameras only raised more questions about who has access to this data and for what purposes. is used with a stunning lack of oversight. The definition of law enforcement use in third parties is vague. This is an invasion of privacies, and flock cameras rely heavily on artificial intelligence, which makes mistakes. There are several documented cases where innocent people have been pulled over, detained, and even held at gunpoint because flock AI cameras misidentified a vehicle. We have seen cases where law enforcement has used these cameras for stalking, but the lack of policy limiting AI usage and its consequences for inaccuracy, and even the lack of oversight at this local level, how can we make sure cameras are being used accurately in the best interest of people? This has caused the distrust of the community. We don't feel safe, and that lack of trust only makes this city more dangerous for us. I urge you to listen to us and take away these cameras so we can go back to being the city we love.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Alia Yousafi. I'm the Senior Policy Advocacy Manager for CARE LA, the Council on American Islamic Relations Greater LA Chapter. And we serve Costa Mesa as part of our region. I want to thank the city council members for hearing me today, and especially the ones that had such thoughtful comments and actually read the MSA and some of the concerns that that raised. I'm here to talk about flock, obviously. I want to start with continuing on some of the surveillance timeline that one of the other commenters started on. And I'm going to talk about the Patriot Act that passed 45 days after 9-11, and which was one of the first steps in drastically changing U.S. surveillance, making it easier for the federal government to monitor citizens in the name of searching for domestic threats. It expanded law enforcement's ability to access people's phone records, bank records, and other personal information in the name of counterterrorism and national security. And simultaneously, then-President George W. Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls without court-approved warrants. Muslim Americans have been among the most impacted by this huge expansion of mass surveillance. Currently, we're entering another era of brave new world, and we're allowing infinite data collection stored in a cloud run by Amazon Web Services. That data is stored at least for one year and allows... And there's a very real possibility of this data being accessed and shared without anyone in this room knowing about it. As council members have pointed out, there are glaring holes and limitations on how this information will be kept secure. You can't allow the technology in first and then figure out the guardrails later. That's the attitude that put the women who were stalked by the Costa Mesa police officer in danger. Not only is there a very real threat that there's already been cases of mistaken identity where flock footage was used to accuse an innocent resident of being a porch pirate and the onus was on her to prove her innocence, which she later was able to. While the Costa Mesa PD may not have anything against the Muslim community, the Trump and his administration.

That's it. That's your time, ma'am.

Hello, my name is Marina Salmon. I live in Santa Ana, but I grew up here in Costa Mesa. I went to school here, community college here, my family lives here, and I work here. So, respectfully, I don't know any of you. I don't know anything about you. I know my city council, over half of them, and our mayor take a lot of money from the police union. Coincidentally, they happen to make decisions in line with what they want, which is more often than not, increase militarization and surveillance to the detriment of our community. And I hope that isn't the case here. But I do know that Flock is a private company collecting our data, the collection of which threatens our privacy and safety. And we've already seen that your own officers use it to track and stalk women. What's stopping them from doing that again? They couldn't give an answer. They said, we'll catch it. They didn't say they'd stop it. What's stopping hackers from stealing it? What's stopping the officers from racially profiling it? What's stopping the federal government from legally or illegally demanding access so that ICE can use this data to abduct, assault, and murder our neighbors? In the beginning of the presentation, they said that FLOC won't share data with the federal government, and then they said that they would when they had to legally. So I don't know which one it is, but it seems pretty unclear according to them. And they also didn't cite any of their sources in their presentation, so I don't know how we're expected to just go off of their word and believe them anyways. Drop the flock contract and say no to mass surveillance, please, if you care about your residents and communities. If Los Angeles PD doesn't need it, then Costa Mesa does not need it. Thank you for your time.

Good evening, everyone. So my name is Christian Sotelo. I'm a lifelong resident of Costa Mesa. And to be quite honest with you, I've always felt comfortable and safe in Costa Mesa. I live on the west side, and many people would characterize that as sketchy or dangerous. But like I said, I've lived there my whole life. I've always felt comfortable and safe. And thanks to our public safety officers and our fire department for keeping us safe. But lately, these cameras have been an invasion of our privacy, where innocence constitutes a crime, where there's no reasonable suspicion or probable cause for surveilling all of us. And to be honest, as a person of color, I sometimes feel like I may be racially profiled even by my own police department, people that are responsible for keeping us safe. And I feel less safe knowing there's cameras by a private system that can be used to racially profile me for maybe driving an older car or maybe misinterpreting who I am based on my racial identity. And yeah, I just want to speak up against the surveillance state because in our political climate, our current administration is labeling people standing up for human rights and dignity as terrorists. And it's just a very divisive time, and if they can label people as terrorists, then they can justify mass surveillance, such as the Patriot Act mentioned by one of my peers. Because, you know, like, anything would be used to justify the mass surveillance. And such as the 9-11 attack was a tragic event, but it was just a massive justification to... erode all of our constitutional rights to privacy. And I would beg the council to reevaluate their flog decision and cancel all contracts because it's a deep, deep erosion of our constitutional rights.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Greetings. I want to begin by thanking Mr. Chavez and Mr. Gamilleros for giving us the opportunity to at least oppose the two-minute timer and it is a shame that the two-minute timer has been implemented. I come here. My name is Abraham Lozahimus. I originally originated being born in Anaheim, but grew up in Stanton. And I came all the way from Anaheim after moving back to Anaheim today, here today, to speak on and discuss how I want to represent the little people who can't come to events or issues and speak up like this. Because they're too busy after coming out of work. I came out of work. I haven't eaten since 2 or 3 p.m. God, I can't even remember. But I want to speak up and I want to be on the right side of history. I want you guys to make sure things can be done so that we don't have to be fearful. I am putting a lethal target on myself by claiming that and admitting that I come from immigrant parents, both my mother and my father. And I'm terrified. Do we really need flock surveillance? Do we really need to give ICE the upper hand and opportunity to speak? For people like me, I oppose Flock and I hope you do too.

Members of the council, my name is Eric Jimenez. I'm speaking on behalf of the young people and families in our city who deserve both safety and freedom. The issue today is not just a technology decision. It is a constitutional decision, a public trust decision, and a decision about what kind of city Costa Mesa wants to be. Bewley tried to suggest with his line of questioning earlier whether we have rights to privacy when we are out in public to begin with. Being visible in public is not the same as being tracked, logged, stored, searched, and shared through a government surveillance system. Legal and constitutional debates over ALPRs focus on exactly that difference, not the passing observation, but the creation of a durable record of a person's movements over time. That concern is not abstract. A Harvard Law review discussion of automated license plate readers noted that in 2016 and 2017, law enforcement scanned 2.5 billion license plates in the US, and 99.5% of those scans were not linked to criminal activity. When almost all of the data collected belongs to innocent people, that is not narrowly tailored public safety. That is mass surveillance. And we should also be honest about who carries the burden when cities normalize surveillance. Communities like Shalimar come to mind, Joanne, Center Street, Pomona, James Street, and so on. Research on youth of color shows that hyper surveillance in marginalized communities increases the risk of involuntary police contact, including for non-delinquent young people simply moving through daily life. That matters because young people do not experience surveillance as neutral when it is layered into neighborhoods that already live with deeper scrutiny and fewer protections. We also do not need to overstate the misconduct of one former CMPD officer to understand the local stakes. The point is not one person. The point is that if a system can be misused, then the city has a duty to ask harder questions before expanding or defending it, like who controls the data, who audits the searches, who is accountable when the system is abused. Thank you.

Hello. First, I'd like to take a quick second to recognize the hard work and efforts of all of the organizations that came today and demand that Flock gets out of Costa Mesa. Truly a great amount of work went into this and shows us what we can do with the power of showing up as a community. As a Costa Mesa resident, I have been living these past few years noticing that more and more cameras, specifically the automated license plate readers, have been added to our city. I see them on the streets on my way to work, to different friends' houses in public areas, surely our city is having a tremendous problem with crime, right? In a perfect world, having access to whereabouts of the public would be very much for safety, right? But when I read headlines that our own police in our city is abusing that power, what safety does that prevail? What accountability has been negotiated? And not just to the people here at the city or at the city council, but to us, the people. It's a real shame knowing that the people that are supposed to be kept safe are keeping us safe now have the power to use these readers to track us down. One must ask themselves these questions and why. Is this really the path we want to head down towards? Are we really that afraid of our own people? If our city abuses that power, how do we know that the company itself isn't doing it themselves too? Are we okay with being preyed upon the sacrifice of safety? Like, why don't we just tackle the root of the crime? I mean, the root of the cause of the crime and not just what we see on the surface. Investing in the people is what I mean. Same people who make up the city that I grew up in and continue to make it the city that I call home, not investing in another program that continues to create fear in our communities. I urge that we cancel the contract with Flock. Bigger cities like LA have already canceled theirs. Surely we can do it here, right? Unless, let's say, there's something we don't know. I yield my time. Thank you.

Free Palestine.

Get rid of ICE.

Hi, my name is Dahlia Collins. I'm an OC resident. I currently live in Laguna Hills, and I'm a college student and a barista. I came to Costa Mesa many times. I used to go to Orange Coast College here. Never felt unsafe, never unwelcome. But what we see with flock, I'm going to cut my speech down a bit with the new timer, is we see something that is being funded with no benefits to us while we all barely scrape by, we barely make enough money to get by, have no time, we're exhausted, while the current administration in place hunts our neighbors and imprisons them and makes them completely fall off the face of the earth. We also have seen a very worrying trend with mass surveillance infrastructure being pushed with Flock, Palantir, Apple, Google, and many other companies now. One of the things mentioned, I know my peers have made many great points about how this has been abused with the police force and then also the issues with Flock, not just tracking license plates, but another interesting thing to mention is the loophole with terrorism. Now, that sounds great on paper, but recently, you can actually look on whitehouse.gov, NPSM 7 is a national security memorandum that was released that targets people and declares them terrorists based on economic concerns that can be interpreted as anti-capitalist, anti-fascist sentiment, extremism on migration, race, and gender, as well as people who do not share traditional American values based in Abrahamic religions. This is a vague blanket that completely targets on many of our heads based on just thoughts we have or who we are. It's very clear that flock is not here for safety. It is here for our submission. to create a panopticon that is only here to make sure that we follow whatever the highest bidder wants, which now seems to be the Trump administration.

Thank you. Hi, Natalie Foley, longtime Costa Mesa resident. I wanted to say I appreciated how so many of you came with prepared questions. They were very good questions. I appreciate you did your homework. I expect that from my representatives, but I also appreciate it. Yeah, let's see. I do have a lot of civil liberties concerns, which everybody else has voiced. But, you know, I remember there was a time when it was pretty universal to have these concerns, the Patriot Act or even TSA concerns. searching everybody before they got onto a plane. There was a time when this was, across the board, considered a bad thing. And I still think it should be a concern across the board. And even if you're not concerned with the way that the current government could use this technology, just think ahead a few years to if there's a different leadership in charge, right? If it's 2028 and we have President AOC And hypothetically, if her FBI wanted to ask Flock, hey, tell me everybody who went to a Second Amendment protest, would there be any reason why Flock wouldn't give them that data? It doesn't sound like it. And I also have another thing to mention, which is it sounds like Flock doesn't take security very seriously. If there's YouTube videos of average people being able to hack their cameras, What would a nation state like China or Russia with their hacking capabilities be able to do? Could they hack into that database and get information about the whereabouts of every American citizen? Like, I don't know. But it doesn't seem like they take security seriously, and I think that should be a concern too. Okay, thanks.

Hello, Mayor and City Council. My name is Sean Drexler. I live and work in Costa Mesa. I thank the council members for caring about our community's safety and for asking questions to help us all understand the contents of this report. It's troubling that so many of the questions could not be answered. It doesn't sound like we know exactly what we'd be agreeing to were the city to continue using Flock, what Flock can and cannot do, who can and who does access its data. Therefore, I urge the council not to continue using the flock system. I agree with many of the concerns raised by the previous speakers. I'm strongly opposed to private companies such as flock surveilling the people who live in, work in, or visit Costa Mesa. And I hope this council opposes that too. The staff report had some very interesting wording, some odd statements that make it hard for me to accept its conclusions at face value. For example, it claimed the cameras are not on major intersections, that they are at parks and federal parking lots. Okay, but they are also along Harbor Boulevard toward the 405. Maybe that's not technically a major intersection, but you can see how that statement gives a broader impression that we might not agree with. It also cited the declining crime rates. That's true, and it's consistent with national data over the past years, which has trended downwards prior to FLOX deployment. But there's no evidence to prove Flock has been a major contributor to the declining crime rates, only assertions of that claim. What I really want to know is who's asking for this. I know staff is recommending it, but who is asking for it? What residents are packing City Hall asking for more tax money to be given to corporations who specialize in surveillance, not crime prevention surveillance? Flock makes its shareholders happy through the collection and sale of our data, not through the prevention of crime. What incentive does Flock have to prevent crime? Again, there was no evidence presented that it did so, just assertions. The flaw cameras do not make us any safer. Safety can only exist where communities have their needs met. Our communities are struggling to pay rent, afford groceries and gas, struggling to find good-paying jobs.

Good evening. Mayor Stephens, city council members, my name's Mary Oberschlake. I am from the city of Orange. I was here a few weeks ago when we were talking about flock, and I said I'd come down because I want to be a good neighbor. I have dear friends that live here in Costa Mesa. I like shopping here. I enjoy this community. You've had an opportunity. I had notes, but I'm over it. You're over it. The bottom line is you've heard all of these people talk about the problems with Flock, with mass surveillance. You have your own questions about what's going on with Flock. So before I step away, the one thing I wanna say, look at me, everybody look at me.

Do you think this is how Americans should live?

Go on the mic so people can hear you.

Do you think this is how Americans should live? How we should conduct ourselves? Do we really believe that mass surveillance stands up to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Is this liberty and justice for all? Is this American? Before you decide, take a deep breath And you ask yourself, what does it mean to me to be an American?

Good evening. My name is Chantel, and I'm an active member of the community. As an active member of the community, how am I supposed to feel safe when those that can view my every location without my consent have been known to stalk women? Are you supposed to feel safe knowing you don't even know who can access that surveillance? Like council member said, all that it takes is one bad apple. How are we prepared to face that bad apple again? My community members have stood up here discussing their experiences in distrust with the city and the local police department. None of us want to be tracked. We were never asked, yet our daily movements are continuously being recorded just for participating in our own community. Is that not frightening to you? As a matter of fact, what will you do if the data gets out there? Or clarification, what can you do once it gets out there? Public safety should be built on trust between the community and the people who reside in it, not on mass surveillance. I urge you to look around. The public is here letting you know how we feel. There is power in the people and the people will not back down. We stand strong here making it known that we will not let our community be further attacked by mass surveillance. Council members, I urge you to cancel the contract and remove flock from Costa Mesa. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and council members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. My name is Cecilia and I'm a Costa Mesa community member here with Sunrise Orange County tonight to urge you to protect us by ending the contract with Flock and getting rid of ALPRs here in Costa Mesa. Surveillance should not be conflated with safety. Being watched and followed does not make an innocent person more safe. Nancy Guthrie, the kidnapped mother of the Today show host, still wasn't saved just because there was a ring camera pointed right at the crime. The access of the flock camera system by a Costa Mesa police officer to stalk the whereabouts of his wife and mistress, even while he was on disciplinary leave for doing so, shows that this system has been misused right here in our own community. This is not a technology that can be trusted. Additionally, the danger of false identification from these systems is very real. In San Diego last fall, flock misidentified a car as stolen and an innocent man spent a month in jail. Tonight, multiple council members asked questions about the plausibility of strengthening the contract so that our city, not Flock, has secure and possibly sole access to the data these cameras collect. But how could we enforce this and guarantee that a tech company with opaque proprietary software, thousands of government contracts across the country, and a valuation of $7.5 billion be held accountable to these contract revisions? They get a legal slap on the wrist at the expense of falsely accused innocent civilians, stalking victims, and an overwhelming paranoid chill across our community? While it's true that we have limited legal rights to privacy in public spaces, the ACLU says, quote, there's no reason the tech should be used to create comprehensive records of everybody's comings and goings. In our country, the government should not be tracking us unless it has individualized suspicion that we're engaged in wrongdoing, close quote. Flock has continually presented bad faith justifications for its existence, like so many other big tech and AI companies do. We have an opportunity tonight to either cede more of our civil liberties to big tech companies, or we can act now while we have the chance.

I know it's late, and most of what I prepared has already been said, especially around what public safety really means. I hope you can recognize how much your community cares about this issue, as evidenced by how many have waited to speak until 11 p.m. We aren't radicals. We're moms, we're students, we're veterans. We are just people who live in this community. I hope you've heard that literally no one in the community is asking for this contract to continue. Not a single person who came tonight Not a single person who emailed the council. And no one is asking for better guard rails or slightly more secure data. They're all asking you to remove these cameras and not replace them with different surveillance. While there is no expectation of privacy in public spaces, there is an expectation that our government and private companies not be allowed to build vehicle fingerprints and databases of all of our vehicle movements. And there's an expectation that a for-profit company with a history of misrepresenting facts and a police department with past transgressions not be auditing themselves. By the way, just because you're not currently searching for more than vehicle and license data doesn't mean the data isn't being collected. They can store the full photographs. There's no way to truly secure this data from misuse by the over 300 California agencies listed on your transparency portal unless you stop collecting it. The staff report says this program supports the goal to strengthen the public's safety and improve the quality of life. I'd ask you to look closely at that claim. A camera does not stop a crime. It cannot stop a crime. It takes a picture of a car that's already passed and then that's not safety. That's at most punishment after the fact. Your officer presented data on crime going down and assumes it's because of flock. How do you know it's from flock? Crime's going down everywhere. The most comprehensive peer-reviewed report on this technology found that we don't even know if it improves public safety at all. The few possible benefits of your police doing their job slightly faster isn't worth the dystopian trade-offs of constant mass surveillance. Vote for the freedom and privacy of the residents you swore to serve. Cancel the fallout contract. If you will not vote tonight to cancel it, then... and bring the results back to this body in public. And if Flock says they'll answer your question, don't allow it to be behind closed doors and verify the information. Don't buy into the marketing.

Dear Mayor, City Council, my name is Anjali, Westside Costa Mesa resident, here to ask, along with all my neighbors, for you to cancel the flock surveillance contract. This is not about tech, it's about trust. We talked a lot about how this is about taking pictures of license and cars, but there are a few cameras right along the bike trail by my house where I frequently, with my daughter, many families, and our neighbors. LCLU and many other organizations has repeatedly identified that Flock has made misleading statements to its buyers. When a vendor, a contractor repeatedly lies, why are we wholeheartedly trusting in them? Many of you, as we discussed the service agreement, identified and clearly found holes and loopholes in the language regarding data access. We heard your constituents, our neighbors, that this is not providing any greater trust in this council or our police force. which has been publicly recognized for the great job that they do in our community, but it's only instilling fear. They're asking for greater investment in services. They're asking for our police force to do their job and patrol our neighborhoods in a greater way that actually provide safety. Tech should be a tool, not a foundation for policing. Public safety and civil liberties are not opposing values. Please cancel this contract.

Good evening, City Council. My name is Libby, and I'm a Costa Mesa community member, and I spend much of my time here with my friends and family, and I'm here with Sunrise Orange County to urge you to cancel the flock contract and keep all ALPRs out of Costa Mesa. Flock cameras don't just capture photos of people in vehicles. No, no, no. Flock cameras... fingerprint vehicles to profile and track individuals in law enforcement databases that can be shared across their network of cities. Now, let me be clear, this warrantless data collection is the privacy violation. The misuse of our data by stalkers such as the ex-Costa Mesa PD officer and other criminals is a consequence of violating our privacy by collecting our data. Even if Flock offers to whittle down its features to only collecting license plates and nothing else, you are still violating our privacy by keeping these cameras up. You have no premise to base this preemptive civilian tracking on because you do not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion and we are not criminals. Flock does not care about us. One of the many shining examples of this uncovered by public records requests is when a Flock VP and employee access cameras in a children's gymnasium and pool to live stream children as a sales pitch of their surveillance tech to police departments. And that's because Flock and any ALPR company chiefly prioritizes maximizing profits for shareholders, not public safety. Flock did not swear an oath to serving the public. You did. And the fact that we've had to repeatedly beg you to stop warrantlessly tracking us feels profoundly undignified. As a girl and now woman who was sexually harassed for the first time at seven years old, I feel unsafer and further at risk. Please join the 90 other cities nationwide and cancel your flock in ALPR.

Good evening. My name is Melissa. I've lived in Costa Mesa for about half my life I had a very eloquent comment prepared, but I'm not gonna do it because of time and the discussion so far So help me because I'm going off script so I've come to a couple meetings and everyone I've heard at every meeting has been speaking with concerns about flock and I THOUGHT THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME PEOPLE SPEAKING IN FAVOR TONIGHT BECAUSE I SAW MULTIPLE POSTS ON MY SOCIAL MEDIA SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING THAT PEOPLE COME AND TELL YOU THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. WE DON'T WANT IT. WE DON'T. AND SO I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AFTER THE CONVERSATION REGARDING WHAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID. I'M WONDERING HOW COASTA MESA WOULD KNOW WHETHER THE DATA is accessed without customized permission by flock. Um, as far as what Lieutenant Barnes said about the 170 people who could access, he said there were a few civilians such as nine one one responders, but I'm wondering who else those civilians are. Are they actually employees? Are they just citizens like me who happened to have a camera? Um, It was actually mentioned earlier, and I'm certainly no lawyer, but I had the question too when I heard Councilman Bewley talking about the expectation of privacy in public, that where is the line between being in public and being stalked? Like at some point, it's not okay anymore. And I'm also curious about the police need to put a reason

That's your time.

Good evening City Council. My name is Uma Devi Rao and I'm an aerospace engineer and I'm here as part of the Sunrise Movement. In case we all needed another reason to distrust Flock, the presenters today mentioned several times that the only information collected by these Flock cameras are the license plates and other identifiable information of vehicles on the road. But as was pointed out, there are flock cameras stationed on bike trails. Now, last time I checked, there are no license plates on bikes. But I don't know what else these cameras are searching for. Maybe if flock had sent a representative, they would have been able to answer those questions. But clearly, they didn't have the balls. So thank you for your time.

Hi, my name is Danielle, and I'm here as a survivor of this ICE brutality, evil and cruel enforcement, immigration enforcement that's been happening in our community. Every murder that I see happening around our country reminds me of how close I was to having my brains blown out by Aaron Pata. I wouldn't have been here. I mean, there's a, yeah. Yuli, I had a concerning question about just because on February 18th when we first started speaking up against Flock, you made a comment of who's watching the watchers. And I just want to say I miss the old Yuli that didn't just stand with their party and actually stood for what's. wrong and what's, you know. I was also really excited for you when you brought up the fact that we need people who have counterarguments in support of it. And as you can tell, because I thought we could have had a really good discussion, but they haven't shown up and we haven't had that opportunity to have a real debate. So I feel sorry that you're by yourself on this, because it feels like everybody in this room is voting, you know, pushing against it. I also want to address the fact that there isn't a Flock representative here. And just address Garrett Langley, who is the CEO of Flock, who recently made a tweet apologizing for referring to the D-Flock group as terrorists in Antifa. And I remember, Billy, you used the word specifically activist. And I know that words matter. In Antifa, that means anti-fascist. And if being anti-fascist makes me Antifa, then I am proud to be Antifa. Again, I am not a criminal. I am not a bad person, no matter the rhetoric that goes on.

Thank you.

My name is Kanan Durham. I'm here speaking on behalf of Pride at the Pier. We're a queer political advocacy org here in Orange County. And I had a lot that I was going to say talking about this current administration, labeling certain people terrorists, the concern that a lot of folks in this community feel. But instead, I want to talk about my nephew, who is currently reading his way through 1984 in school. And he came up to me, when I'm visiting him and his mom, and said, I don't understand why this was such a big deal, because we're all watched all the time, right? 75 years ago, we all understood that the idea of a surveillance state was a nightmare, that that's a dystopia. And yet we are continually moving further and further towards that reality. Now, you don't have responsibility or accountability over corporate surveillance, but you do have a responsibility and accountability over government surveillance coming through this city. you have a contract that you have in front of you. It's your responsibility to make sure that kids like my nephew don't live in a world where they're afraid that there's a camera on every corner watching what they do. Thank you.

Hello, thank you for listening. My name is Jay. I know what it is like to be followed by undercover police from East Berlin and Russia when visiting East Berlin back in the day. I know what it's like to be detained and questioned, even if briefly, it's intimidation that is key. More recently, I have a friend with a significant other from Canada. The significant other came here driving her car from Canada and decided she had to leave our country early for fear of being stopped by ICE and put in a detention camp like another Canadian was. She and her significant other now have to live in separate countries. While solving crimes is a good goal, and I do support our police in doing so, and it's a good goal and we can all applaud that, but I think it's also disingenuous to think that the data will not be used for illegal purposes by people beyond the control of Costa Mesa, especially in the current political environment. I think people have already talked about who owns Flock, the money behind that. We've heard about the administration, the current administration talking about how protesters are terrorists and it's very hard to connect the dots in how Flock can be misused. Thank you very much.

Hi, my name is Andy. If I remember correctly, one of the admins said that Flock only collects license plates with the current configuration. I remember that statement very specifically, which means it can get updates and it can have other configurations. Agreeing to mass surveillance is being the frogs in slowly boiling water. The rise of data centers is not just for generative AI, it's to prepare for a future where mass surveillance is not only normalized but used against us as it currently is in Palestine. You think it couldn't happen here, but the Israeli and US militaries are very close and share technology. This is laying the groundwork for that. With NSPM 7, anyone from Republicans, Democrats, independents, immigrants, trans people, queer people, activists, anyone who has a modicum of criticism against the federal government or allows the government to interpret that as an act of domestic terrorism. I know the city council is operating at a local level, but if you believe in protecting First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, allowing a clear avenue for this technology to be abused in a way that could infringe on that is not protecting your constituents at all. You have the opportunity to protect people's rights and safety. Thank you.

Hello, city council members and Mr. Mayor. Thank you for the opportunity to offer public comment. My name is David. I'm here today with Sunrise Orange County. I'm urging a no vote on extending use of flock cameras. I regularly visit Costa Mesa, and when I think of this city, I think of the vibrant downtown. I think of the great beaches. I think of the unique shopping centers. I think of the OC fairgrounds. Costa Mesa is supposed to be a safe, welcoming, and open space. worth traveling out to. This is at odds with the network of flock cameras now in the city. They create a network of perpetual, constant, never-ending surveillance that can never truly be turned off once it's switched on. No matter how well-run or regulated, this absolute power to watch and surveil absolutely will be corrupted and compromised. As we saw before, it just takes one person to misuse the system to put people's safety in danger. And I think that's really worth paying attention to, just how few consequences there were for that person. Today, also, I want to point out, some people pointed out that you do have this six-figure contract with Flock Group, and they didn't take the time to show up as we were hoping for today for them to present their side of the story. Your business partner did not show up to defend their business. They're hoping to get more business from you in these years to come, and they couldn't respect you enough to take that time. Today City Council members have very legitimate questions about how FLOC is taking the data from these cameras, how it stores it in its cloud, and then when and how it releases it to third parties. And I think it's very shameful they're not here today to answer those questions. FLOC's contracts have come under a lot of scrutiny around the country. And it's increasingly more controversial to keep defending them and renewing them than it is to cancel them. And I just want to repeat again, I think it's very shameful they're not here to defend themselves today. Thank you, everyone, for speaking.

good evening mayor and city council i don't want to take time to explain i mean what was said here i think it's pretty clear um i my name is christian garcia arcos i am the current commissioner for parks and community services and i wanted to share a little something personal so i wear many hats the one dearest to my heart is being a community leader As a leader, we have the privilege to be there for our community in celebration and hard times. We are under attack. We are hurting mentally, physically, and spiritually. From experience, my neighbors and my uncles have been deported. And families have been broken. And it makes it difficult to feel hope. So that's why we are here. We are here for those who couldn't make it, for our leaders, our parents, our brothers, and our sisters. And as you can see, this is 100% against. So I bring this up to share with you how I feel, how our community feels. So thank you for your time.

David Martinez, commissioner for myself. I just want to present the council with a few if-then statements. If, as presented and as agreed to, the data is not supposed to be shared with immigration enforcement, then to the extent that we know it has, we should cancel the flock contract. If it's not supposed to be used for personal use, then if we know that's happening, we should cancel the FLOC contract if we cannot control it ourselves. If the current system is only tracking plates and vehicle descriptions and we know that it could be upgraded and changed to also track people then we shouldn't allow that and we should cancel the FLOC contract. Now I want to talk about Section 5.3 specifically because it's a very weird, like, legalese paragraph. FWOC may access, use, preserve, and or disclose footage as defined to law enforcement authorities, government agencies, and or third parties. legally required to do so or if they have a good faith belief that it's reasonably necessary to comply with legal process and force agreement or prevent or detect or address security privacy fraud or emergency so in theory if flock has a good faith belief whatever that means that to address security they need to preserve our data and to give it to a government agency, whichever government agency that might be, they are allowed to do that under this contract. They themselves can decide to preserve our footage to address a vague security concern, a vague security issue that is not defined in our contract. I think that that is enough of a reason for concern that we should not allow this to happen. Thank you.

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I want to start off by saying thank you to the City Council and Costa Mesa PD for being the only two groups of people that came here to talk about it with us. Shame on Flock and every single one of their other customers for not coming here to do something about it. I trust this local government very much because they've had an amazing impact on my life. They've heard me. They have helped when I've given advice. And this is another one of those moments where they do need to listen because they're being lied to. Flock is not a good company. They are shady. They didn't come to defend you. They have constantly lied to multiple municipalities about their contracts. Think of it like a box. Our local government gets to see this much from flock, while outside agencies get to see this much, and you aren't notified about it. That is not fair. That is the kind of corporatism that the founding fathers would hate. If they were alive today and they knew this was going on, that you were being betrayed, they'd hate it. And I don't blame you because this is local government. Obviously, they over at Flock don't have an obligation to the people or the Constitution. or a policy book, their only obligation is shareholders, money, profits. So once again, thank you. Thank you for what you do. I have deep respect for what you do. And I hope that both of you can come together to make the correct choice of letting your contract expire and not renewing it with Flock.

I just want to say that right off the bat, I want you to cancel or not renew The trust in our police department is being violated by these cameras. I am absolutely offended that you have concentrated cameras in the Hispanic areas, that it just violates the trust of our city. And we've had such a good rapport with our police department. And here's one item that I think shocked me, and I want to share it with you. This is a presidential memorandum. It's SPN-SPM7. And it quotes. And prior to this, they're considering Antifa protesters, immigration, all as a local terrorist, homegrown terrorists. And it says, quote, I direct for the first time in American history all of our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to work together to disrupt these entities and to be partner and arrest and prosecute these political activists and terrorists that are operating in our country. Flock is the mechanism for that. That will allow it to happen, shore to shore. You have the responsibility for our community to absolutely stop what's happening. I don't trust Flock. I trust the police department more than I trust the accessibility that Flock has with this information. So you stop it now, because our power is in our voice and in our vote, and we're not afraid to use it, either one of them.

All right, relax, relax, relax, relax, relax, relax, everybody.

Ali, please.

Ali. You have two minutes, Ali.

Good evening council members and mayor. My name is Allison Rubin thought I'm with the of Southern California. We urge the Costa Mesa city council to cancel its contract with flock safety. Simply put the type of precise location data that flock safety collects is inherently too sensitive for the government to have flock allows the government to collect information about everyday citizens going about their lives that should otherwise only be accessible based on a warrant. This technology creates a detailed profile of your vehicle, including distinguishing marks and bumper stickers that it allows the government to collect information about what doctors do you visit, where you worship, who you spend time with, and where you live. This poses serious threats to fundamental civil liberties of community members through surveillance. Police can use flock's nationwide networks of cameras as a proxy search engine and search for individuals or groups based on their clothing, tattoos, bumper stickers, and even race and symbols of their political affiliation. Police have consistently used Flock to surveil First Amendment activity and recently used Flock to collect sensitive data about ICE protests throughout the Southland using general terms like ICE or protest. Even if Costa Mesa Police Department adopts protective policies, the collection of such sensitive information makes disclosure to third parties inevitable, whether intentional or unintentional. No amount of the city's own policies can police the conduct of third parties. ALPR databases include data collected by public sector and private customers. As a result, ICE can tap into an ALPR system's nationwide database for the purpose of targeting immigrants. Though Flock claims to not share information with immigration officials, there have been multiple reports of ICE using this technology for immigration enforcement through informal favors by local and state police to the federal government. For instance, last year, the Orange County Sheriff's Department, whose Flock policy mirrors Costa Mesa's and is authored by the same entity, was one of 10 agencies that searched its ALPR system on behalf of federal immigration agencies in violation of decades-old California law enacted to prevent this very kind of information sharing. The dangers posed by flocks can not be eliminated through policies.

Next speaker is Michael.

Michael.

All right, can you hear me? Yes, we can. Great, thank you. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Council, Police Department, everyone in the chambers. Thank you for all your comments that are thoughtful. And since we got cut down to two minutes, I'll go off script, which is always great. So I first moved to Costa Mesa in 2003, and I still live and work here. I started working in tech about 20 years ago. I can tell you every single system is hackable. Flock has been hacked multiple times, and the best way to keep personal info private is to not collect it at all, right? So I trust our PD. I work with them often on things throughout the community. I trust those, especially the ones I know, including some of you who presented tonight. But we've already seen that a former Costa Mesa officer already abused the system to stalk his ex-wife girlfriend and others it's been talked about a whole bunch there's no way to guarantee this doesn't happen again um i really appreciate that our pd has not shared our data with ice but departments like huntington beach and many others have a much different history than we do and they have access to our data and so that's not okay the safety of our immigrant community is of the utmost importance we need to get those cameras out of the whole city but especially out of a shalimar neighborhood Flock didn't even send someone out to this meeting tonight. That's cowardice. My neighbors in the police department. Flock misled you and left you hanging. They have lied to you about what type of data they collect and who can access that. Are you sure this company is one you want to call a partner? Flock does not care about you. They do not care about you or public safety. They only care about themselves and their profit. My council, you have a duty to represent your constituents and I often see that you do. So I just hope that you please read the room. We've all spoken loud and clear, get flock out of the city. And I was gonna do a little bit to invite anyone who disagreed with me to the youth club, but no one showed up. So I guess they're all keyboard warriors. But if you are listening and you disagree, come play songs with us and get to know each other so we can have real conversations.

Priscilla, please.

Hello, I used to document mainframe computer systems alongside highly trained engineers who work to protect the privacy of the data. Yet my personal data has been breached multiple times. The effect affected company often provides free credit services so I can ensure my data is not being used by thieves. Flock's business model is the polar opposite. They're reckless. Flock is not a license plate reader. It's an indiscriminate surveillance system outlined in Project 2025. Its goal is not data safety, but nationwide weaponization for Trump and ICE. Every day, it's hard to believe, but people in this country still have a legal right to protest without being shot, and an immigration infraction is only a misdemeanor, not an execution order. Yet Trump has funded and built an unvetted, untrained mass group of pedophiles, vigilantes, and murderers who maim and assassinate citizens and non-citizens alike. Their only goal is meeting quotas and to fill for-profit concentration camps. Flock is backed by billionaire venture capitalists and private equity firms best known for gobbling up houses and gutting hospitals and care homes, with great regard for profit but no regard for the ill or elderly. Trump and Flock continue to defy the Fourth Amendment. Those of us who helped put you, many of you on that dais expect you at the very least to obey the law. Every vote for flock is a betrayal of every person living and driving through Costa Mesa. Every vote is a willful gift to Trump and ICE to assist in dismantling democracy. This will be your legacy and we will call it out. Kayla, please.

Kayla, you got the floor.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Perfect. So my name is Kayla Asato, and I'm a resident of Orange County, and I did mention that my last name is Asato because I am Japanese American. My family was thrown into the internment camps because of mass surveillance from the government, violating public trust, and seizing census data. This is a mass atrocity that would live in infamy, or so I was told growing up. This is why I've been opposed to mass surveillance via the Patriot Act and why I'm opposed to this Flock contract. Honestly, I also just came back from a vacation in Seattle and Cleveland. Cleveland is a city that ended their Flock contract. Surprisingly, ending the Flock contract didn't make the city into a lawless zone with a huge rise in crime. On the contrary, crime has been down in the city of Cleveland. In the tech hub and surveillance state that is known as the city of Seattle, there are a number of crimes that weren't prevented by Flock. I'm also someone who would love to have kids someday. And my wife is very concerned with big tech companies like Facebook and Flock. She's actually just read a number of books about them and the business model of them are all the same. They hold on to our data and they use the data for a profit. They don't care about anything else. They're willing to throw anything else away. So even if the city is using the data for the most great intentions and purposes, Flock still has access to that data through side doors, sharing it with ICE, And also, if Flock went bankrupt like 23andMe did, someone could buy all of that data. 23andMe had everyone's biometric data sold to whoever wanted it. Flock is doing the same thing eventually to our children's walk routes, the smiles and faces that they're growing up with, playing in the parks. And I don't know about you or how many of you have children, but I don't want a pervert buying this Flock data to look at our kids and do who knows what. be it biometric data or videos of our children filmed without any of our consent, I don't want a private company in charge of that.

Vivek, please.

Vivek, you have the floor.

Hi, thanks for the time. I lived in Costa Mesa for the last six years, and I think the most important point for the council to consider is that the second we share our flock data with any other police jurisdictions, we're no longer in control of how that information may be used, even if it's to hurt our community. The concern is not just how Costa Mesa PD uses flock. We've heard from them that they share information extensively with our neighboring agencies. But let's be clear, neighboring jurisdictions and counties do not share Costa Mesa values or policies. Who's in charge of auditing these other police departments? What's their motivation or reason to protect our community? It is completely foolish to pretend that other police departments using our data on our residents would have the same priorities as our local police. We know this not to be true. Before continuing this program, the burden should be on our local police to prove that its partners that it shares data with can meet our own standards for transparency, civil rights compliance, and accountability. The problem is that they cannot do this, and that is why this program must end. To the City Council, please read the room. It is your duty to represent the community that you were elected to serve. Okay.

Ron, please.

Ron, you have the floor.

Mr. Mayor, can you hear me?

Yes, we can.

Okay. Ron Lawrence, Costa Mesa resident and your former chief of police. And I might be the only person that's going to be in public comment supporting flock cameras tonight. I know you've heard from a lot of people, a lot of passionate people, a lot of strong emotions, frankly, a lot of misinformation. They're good people. There's just a lot of fear and misinformation around the flock cameras. But the people I know, the other 110,000 residents in Costa Mesa are supportive of flock cameras, particularly the business community and the people that I know in my neighborhoods. They know it because flock cameras recovered hundreds of stolen vehicles driven by criminals intent on committing crimes in our community. We've removed those felons from our streets because of flock cameras. We've solved hundreds of serious crimes such as rapes, stabbings, kidnappings, and even homicides because of the flock cameras. I know we've had one bad actor and I'm proud of Costa Mesa PD for holding that individual accountable. We fired him. He'll never be a police officer again. And he was convicted by the district attorney's office because we, Costa Mesa PD, insisted that they file charges, or at least consider charges. They did, and he was committed of that crime. That's called holding people accountable. We've all heard stories about different professions. Judges, teachers, clergy, having bad actors. They make mistakes, and those individuals are held accountable. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. The flock camera is an amazing tool to help your police department keep us all safe. You've heard from 150 people tonight. You represent 110,000 people. And I assure you, there's a lot of people who support flock cameras and they trust our Costa Mesa Police Department. Please keep the cameras.

Thank you. Thank you. Stop it. Who's next?

Yachty, please.

Yachty.

Hi, I'm Yadi, your Pasadena neighbor, and my personal information is accessible through your databases. First, shout out to members of the public for standing up for privacy, personal safety, and fighting surveillance. People's personal information and data is not a free-for-all. As Californians, we can enforce our consumer privacy rights to opt out of the collection and sharing of our data from private entities like data brokers. The Constitution demands law enforcement obtain a warrant to access our homes and phones, but that's entirely lacking for ALPR, real-time crime sentence, and other nascent surveillance tech. I agree with law enforcement and elected officials who say these tools are useful. Indeed, there's overwhelming evidence that these tools have been great at stalking women. Women's rights are being stripped across the country, and now we're being stripped of our rights to push back against stalkers and creepers. or getting restraining orders because of the false premise that there's no expectation of privacy in public. Perhaps if women, mothers, and people exercising their First Amendment rights in vulnerable communities most negatively impacted would have been consulted in advance, we could ensure public safety doesn't end up oppressing a giant swath of the public. it's not a good look to have constituents beg and plead with their government to stop spying on them and stop making them less safe we are not domestic terrorists rather constituents fighting to reclaim privacy and dignity there has to be a red line what's going to happen when law enforcement wants to wear creeper meta glasses for our safety because they're a useful tool please don't engage in ways To reform warrantless mass surveillance and please don't try to convince us that we need to be controlled and oppressed for our safety. That's dismissive, undemocratic, and against the spirit of our laws. No surveillance, no to flock.

Doug, please. Doug, please.

Yes, can you hear me?

We can.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Doug, and although I am not a resident of Costa Mesa, I dine and shop there frequently. I urge Council to terminate their relationship with Flock and do not replace it with another ALPR vendor. We must address the root causes of crime and violence, not just what happens after the violence has occurred. Instead of funding mass surveillance, fund the work being done by community leaders like Pastor Phil Eichens that spoke earlier tonight. I reject the notion that making the city safer requires constantly expanding the surveillance apparatus. Surveillance is not safety. I want to highlight the speaker tonight who was born under a fascist dictatorship. What a chilling reminder that surveillance of the people is not a hallmark of functioning democracies. Surveillance is a hallmark of authoritarian societies. It is incompatible with democracy, civil liberty, and freedom. Once the system is built and data is collected, you can't always dictate how that data will be used, especially when you're holding on to that data for a year. Costa Mesa PD couldn't even give you an estimate on how many other people have access to Costa Mesa data. Pretty unsettling, isn't it? and council, respectfully, I would be offended if I were you. This meeting tonight is the most publicized, significant, and well-attended council meeting in Orange County regarding Flock to date. Flock couldn't be bothered to send a rep there for this, not even Zoom. They flew a team of four reps to a small town in northern Wisconsin called Neenah, population 27,000 last month, for a committee meeting, not even a council meeting. Is this a company you want to do business with? Flock brags that 80 contracts canceled is half a percent of their business. Doing business with Flock is a 100% violation of the trust of Costa Mesa residents. Surveillance is not safety. Terminate this contract today. Do not replace it with another vendor. Thank you.

Thanks. Cynthia, please.

Cynthia, you have the floor. Cynthia?

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. First, I support RPD. Some of you know there was a murder next door to me, but you may not know that I gave the PD the information on the vehicle that led to the arrest of the murderer. And that was before Flock existed. When I was young, wiretapping technology already existed. Most people didn't think much about it until we learned that J. Edgar Hoover used it to gather information on the private lives of political opponents. The technology was powerful, but the real issue was how it could be misused. Today, flock cameras raise the same concerns. These cameras create a mass surveillance system by tracking vehicle movements and storing location data. There are questions about the accuracy and oversight. LAPD recently sought greater control over its flock system after problems involving AI-generated alerts. An LAPD internal audit found that the system mistakenly flagged vehicles as stolen, resulting in 161 innocent drivers being wrongly stopped in just two months. When errors occur, real people can face the real consequences. If I'm out in public, I may not have the privacy I'd like. but I should be able to have a reasonable expectation that me or my kids will not be pulled over and arrested for a crime we didn't commit. The recent prosecution of the Costa Mesa police officer accused of misusing the system demonstrates why strong safeguards matter. If misuse can happen, we must ask whether current oversight is truly adequate. Who stops an Edward Snowden type from stealing the data from Flock? And yes, every system is hackable.

This is about the city's transparency. Phone number ending in 264, please.

264, you have the floor.

Can you hear me?

You can.

Hello, my name is Leslie, and I'm a resident of Tustin. Flock is not the savior it represents itself to be. I have researched the flock system for the past five months to inform my own city council. And we just had a talk about it earlier today. Keep the warnings you are being given tonight. There is no way to band-aid this. And the only other option is an entire removal of the flock security system. Every point to defend this security system has been proven wrong. Stop defending a corporation. Your citizens are rightfully angry. All your political seats will be tested, and they should be if you continue this agreement. I stand with the facts, and I stand with the people of Costa Mesa. I am so proud of them. A mistake is forgetting your fridge was open. Using a system to suppress the people and follow them is abusive. You could have avoided a five-hour meeting if you had listened to your community first. It's not their fault. You're stuck there. You did that all on your own. You're a public servant. Humble yourself.

Phone number ending in 211, please.

211, you have the floor. 211.

211, please unmute yourself.

Is that the last speaker? No, we have a couple others. Let's go to another one.

Alexis, please.

Alexis, you have the floor.

Hello, my name is Alexis, and I'm a previous Costa Mesa resident of many years and now live nearby. I'm also a cybersecurity engineer at one of the largest cybersecurity companies in the country with over a decade of experience. Flock cameras are not secure. They have been found lacking in even the most basic security configurations. These cameras have genuinely some of the worst security I've seen on government and police devices in my entire career. On top of that, our police are not using the basic industry standard practice of least access, meaning that only those who absolutely need access get it. They are being extremely careless and dangerous with our personal data. I've been researching these cameras for over a year, and I can say with certainty that they are not effective at keeping the data secure. They're costly, insecure, ineffective, and pry into all of our private lives. This city is very special to me, and so it saddens me greatly to see dragnet surveillance creating dystopian fear in our city. Please oppose any sort of surveillance in our local community. I yield my time.

Phone number in 2-1-1, please. 2-1-1? You have the floor.

2-1-1?

No further speakers, Mr. Mayor.

All right. Closed public comment. Uh-oh, we've got a motion from Councilmember Gamero. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So I'd like to make a motion here. My motion is going to be a couple of things, so bear with me. First of all, I want to take the existing, my motion is to take the existing contract as it is and cancel it on its face. Secondly, I want to modify the contract for consideration of reinstatement to keep the flock program. with a couple of things. Limit the retention of information to 21 days. Hold on, I have a couple other things here. Give me one second here. I want to direct the city attorney to review the flock agreement and negotiate revisions to sections related to the release of data to third parties, requiring notice of the city of any demand for data including subpoenas and court orders, eliminate language, recustomer generated data, revise language to preclude sale, exchange, or other release of customer data, no change to system capabilities without approval of the city, and such other revisions will strengthen the protection of the data to the maximum extent possible, applicable, and return with modified language to the council for consideration. Second. If I can get a second, okay.

Okay, Councilmember, you wish to be heard to support your motion?

You know what? Yeah, I actually do. I've heard a lot of people speak tonight, and I have to agree that I do not support FLOC in its existing state, the way it operates and the way it exists. But one thing we have to realize as a community that this is a force multiplier for our police department. And without this, we're not going to be able to keep our community safe. So we have to take... and decide do we want to have a safe community or do we want to have our police department scrambling on its feet to try and chase down criminals we have a proven track record of crime deteriorating for the past several years due largely in part to the use of flock so what we need to do is figure out how to control it how to limit it and how to empower our police department and that's all i have

Mr. Mayor, can I request the maker of the motion make some friendly amendments?

Yes. Yes, of course, yeah.

On the section really, I agree with everything you just said, some additions regarding the contract. I want to eliminate any reference to audio or audio detection. I'd like to separate the definition of retention period and access period. I'd like to clarify 2.4 upgrades to platform which prohibit the addition of any capabilities of software without notification. I want to remove section 4.2 given that none of us are clear what that is referring to. I think in 4.1, there's an opportunity to further define both the retention period and the access period. Section 4.3, I want to strike the section about granting anonymized data for training. I think we need to add a section 4.4 related to data destruction procedures and protocols. And I think council member Ramirez did a good job of capturing the remainder.

I have a substitute motion.

I'm fine with that.

Yeah.

Okay. So now he's spoken to it. Do you want to speak to the second?

Yeah. I mean, look, I understand the argument that we can't control it. I think this is part of what ultimately needs to be a larger reckoning among cities about how we're going to deal with technology and AI. I mean, I think that's part of it, right? It's like we don't have an existing citywide stance or policy about how we're going to treat these things, and they're going to become ever more pervasive. And that's probably something that we need to think about as it relates to all of the data we collect from people who apply for building permits. How are we storing that data? Is it secure? How long are we storing it for? Who has access to it? Some of the discussions we're having about auditing, that should be the practice anywhere in the city. We should have a list of who has access. We should be careful about controls as people are leaving the city. We should be trying to make sure that people are not being bad actors. And that is not specific to Flock. We use tons of third party private systems for lots of different things, all of which, frankly, are open to potential for abuse, mishandling, bad actors. And so I hear the criticism. And I think the answer is not to take away what I do ultimately think is a valuable tool. It is to step back and examine all of our policies. So I think that would be my ask for city staff. It's probably our IT director, who I'm positive is not here at midnight, to think about how else we should be approaching this from a citywide stance and not specific to this technology. And I apologize. To make early motion, I had some additional comments. requests. One is to define better what a monthly audit report, this isn't a contractual issue, but to define better what an audit report would look like such that it was something that the public could do a PRA for. I think that's going to require a city attorney, city clerk and PD to talk through, but What can we release in terms of what's being queried regularly and how do we consolidate that into what might look like a monthly report? And then the second thing is we need to limit the number of authorized users. I don't know if that number is 20 or 35, but it's not 170, and that's probably a procedural operational question for PD to come back with a recommendation, but we should be thinking about dispatch and supervisors, not everybody who has a badge or access. But I'm OK having that conversation offline. I just want to make sure we're bringing it up. And then the last thing I'll say is on the retention period, I did do a little bit of a deep dive in this. The entire state of Washington, the entire state of Virginia limits the retention period for this type of data to 21 days. So this is not me being sort of arbitrary and pulling a number out of thin air. I know the police chief would rather it was 180 days plus, but let's start with 21 days because that at least mirrors state law and several other places that do have, frankly, stricter concerns and limitations on data collection and data privacy. probably where California should be headed is closer to the state laws existing in Virginia and Washington as it relates to Privacy and data retention. Thank you.

So I have a question for procedure so There have been numerous requests, including just recently, to amend the motion. The maker of the motion, are you amenable to all the requests that were made by Councilmember Maher?

Yeah.

Okay. And I also have one question. I was trying to write down the motion as best I could, but what exactly are you proposing we do with this 5.3 disclosure of footage? WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC PART OF THE MOTION THAT ADDRESSES THAT?

CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION?

YEAH, THE QUESTION IS, SO 5.3 DISCLOSURE OF FOOTAGE WAS DISCUSSED, IT WAS EVEN IN OUR POWERPOINT, SUBJECT TO AND And during the retention period, flock may access, use, and so forth, and so on, and so on. And the good faith basis, there's all this language. I'm not going to read it, but you can look at it. What does the motion do to address that section and that issue specifically?

I want to ask for the city attorney to help me with the language on that, because that's a very critical piece.

Yeah, as I understood the motion, I was to modify language on a variety of issues, including that one, to restrict distribution, require that we be notified of any request for that data, whether it's a subpoena or other requests and that so that we can step in to prevent it from happening is how I understood it.