Good good afternoon everyone. Thank you all for being here this evening for the March 28th meeting of the Capital City Council Can we have a roll call please? Councilmember Clark. Here. Councilmember Morgan. Here. Councilmember Peterson. Here. Nice Mayor Brant. Here. And Mayor Brown. Here. Thank you. Please join us for the Pledge of Allegiance. Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God. All right. Do we have any additions or deletions to tonight's agenda? I'll turn to our city manager to see if there's any additions or deletions to tonight's agenda. No changes to the agenda this evening. Thank you. Can we have a report on closed session please? The council met in closed session and took no reportable actions tonight. Thank you. Any additional materials? Staff did distribute additional materials for tonight's agenda. We had an updated staff report attachment and one email related to 7i in updated attachment for 8a and an email was received for 8b. All materials are available for public review online and in the back of the room and were provided to council before tonight's meeting. Thank you. All right. We'll move on to item five. This is oral communications by members of the public. This is an opportunity for members of the public to address the council on items not on tonight's agenda. Anyone who is interested in speaking this evening, if you go ahead and raise your hand so we can get an idea of how many public speakers were expecting this evening. Okay. With that, we'll keep it at three minutes. Please line up. State your name at the podium if you would like it recorded in the minutes. Good evening. Hi. My name is Warren Klapec. I'm an army veteran in German that means army veteran. I served as a security guard for Zeldos on the beach extensively with my black brother George for a while. But what I observed at that point one time is that there was illegal cocaine trafficking by other bar at that same time. I raised this issue with some authorities here. I'm sorry to bring that up, but this is a really issue. It's not only cocaine, it's also ecstasy, prostitution, and other stuff that is going on in Capitola at the moment. Thank you very much for listening. God bless you all. Take care. Thank you. Hi, welcome. Good evening. We are here representing concerned citizens of Capitola and the 2500 residents who voted in the majority to approve measure, approve measure L. Please accept this formal complaint from against the city of Capitola for willful violation of Capitola city municipal code section 8.72 specifically code section 8.72.040. That states as follows a city of Capitola through its constituent departments shall take all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the corridor and trestle for active transportation and recreation. B. No city of Capitola department agency or employee shall expand any funds or resources related to the construction reconstruction operation maintenance financing marketing or signage for a detour of the trail onto Capitola street or sidewalks parentheses ordinance 1026 section 1, 2018. The city through the city council and the city manager's office has violated the ordinance by failing to take quote all steps necessary to utilize the RTC corridor and trestle for active transportation and recreation. To the contrary, the city's actions and policies have actively been in opposition to using the trestle for the corridor trail and instead has promoted detouring the trail through Capitola village. The very concern that findings in ordinance section 8.2 7.2 greenway Capitola corridor were meant to address. I defer now to Karen Hannah to continue reading the complaint. Thank you. Hi, welcome. Good evening. Mayor Brown has publicly stated that she believes municipal code 8.72 is unsafe and therefore she has and will continue to take actions that are in direct violation of the code 8.72 as chair of the RTC Mayor Brown has voted for motions that are in direct violation of the code. And the language in city code 8.72 specifically she's voted in favor of and supports diverting the rail trail bike pedestrian path into the city council member Peterson is also representative on the RTC board and has also supported diverting the bike and pedestrian path into the city streets. Additionally at the city council meeting on January 25th 2024 during a discussion of a Stockton bridge engineering contract council member Peterson requested that the city also review widening Stockton bridge specifically for the rail trail bicycle and pedestrian path. City manager responded that they could look at it in context of the contract. At no point did the city manager state that it could violate city municipal code again in direct violation of the city municipal code. Thank you. Hi, welcome. Good evening. Thank you. So to continue. Let me stand back. It should also be noted that the city appears to be using the cliff drive resiliency project as a means to make additional access for the bike and pedestrian path diverted into the city. The second paragraph of section a states that the city's LCP which is a local coastal. Currently identifies cliff drive as a priority for coastal access improvements her policy to dash for as the pedestrian and bicycle facilities currently consists of an unimproved road shoulder which we're all aware of if you walk through Capitola. Improvements for coastal access cannot be made at this time as episodic bluff erosion threatens the runway. The purpose of this project is to identify a preferred alternative to improve the road structure and configuration which will then be incorporated as an amendment to the LCP. Further, the city council advocated the responsibility to uphold the municipal code by voting for the joint coastal development permit referred to as the CDP. Thereby bypassing our local planning commission and the normal planning process. Our planning commissioners would have denied the CDP based on the city municipal code and prevented the county rail trail and holy diverting into Capitola city streets. The city should comply with the letter and intent of municipal code 8.72 and based on measure L and municipal code 8.72 the city has no authority to support diverting of the rail trail bike and pedestrian path into any portion of the city of Capitola. There are two positions available to the city moving forward. The first support the RTC design option A which is the bike and pedestrian path continuing over the trestle and option to divert the bike and pedestrian path around the city of Capitola. We feel very strongly about this and we really appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Hi, welcome. Hi, my name is Terry Thomas. I'm a 50 year resident of Capitola living in Park on Park Avenue across from Escalona Gulch, which got me started in city politics. And so now I'm a former planning commissioner. There are two reasons I would like to resolve for you. Number one, implement design option A with the trail on Capitola trestle over the creek. Now that it has been determined by the EIR that rail banking is not required. This will prevent the overcrowding safety hazards and difficulty for seniors in the disabled that rerouting bikes and pedestrians into an already chaotic traffic situation in Capitola village would cause. Should a train ever be reactivated, then the path could be rerouted to the village. Using the trestle for the trail would be so much safer and user friendly. Number two, then reroute the pedestrian and bike traffic onto the already existing sidewalks and bike lanes on Park Avenue from Monterey to Coronado. It's not nearly as busy. It would be in keeping with the MBSFT master plan regarding the use of existing streets by maximizing new Brighton and Monterey Bay views. But more importantly, it would protect and leave undisturbed Escalona Gulch's Monterey butterfly roosting area as well as avoid the destruction to long established wildlife corridors and habitat. Plus potential disturbance to avian nesting sites along this segment. The wildlife cannot speak for themselves, so we have to. The proposed elevated trail along Park Avenue section is up to 12 feet high and precludes any future revegetation. It would be highly destructive and expensive compared to the using the existing street amenities. It would be much cheaper and safer for all to switch the trail to go on the trestle and then move it on to Park Avenue. So trade capitol of village over congestion by using the trestle for saving Escalona Gulch and its trees by utilizing Park Avenue instead. Please don't condemn Escalona Gulch again. Two problems solved. Thank you. Welcome. Gary Richard Arnold. I'm here to point out to the people that don't know that for decades, the city council, those up and down the state, have been building a parallel government called Calcog. A cog is a council of governments, if no more than a Soviet. The last one I attended, there were only two people from our Soviet ambag from the public. That's from 18 cities and three counties. The mayor was there at the meeting and she's supposed to report to her friends. Now they have triple the power of taxation that the city council has because state money and federal money is involved. And also the United Nations and the World Bank is involved with their sustainable goals. So these people are being led around by Calcog. One of the powerful organizations that does, works with this is called founded by Leon Panetta. It's California Forward. Leon Panetta and many Danca. It's an extension of Common Cause, which is done by our peers, of course. It was founded and funded by IBM, Ford Chase, New York Times, Keunlobe, David Rockefeller, Lawrence Rockefeller, Martha Rockefeller, Stephen Rockefeller, John D. Rockefeller, the third. Also it was headed by John Gardner, who replaced Alger Hiss at the head of the Carnegie Foundation. The other co-founder is a communist collaborator, Leon Panetta, looked up Panetta Gate. He gave military and policy information to the communist red Chinese spy that has two plaques on the courthouse steps today. And by you're not telling the people and you as the city council should force that member to make a written report to these people that are paying for all this stuff. And you should also insist that this be put on public TV. It's outrageous. It's a stealth operation and Lenny Mandaka advocates getting rid of 80% of the local government. That means you guys up here, out of one cog, we've got 18 cities in three counties. So you're cutting your own throats and you don't know it. Last time I was here, I gave you an article by Willie Brown, who was the Democratic head of the state assembly, and he advocated getting rid of every county and city in the state. And of course, he's got connections to the vice president, et cetera. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Ted Burke. I'm a 50 year old. I wish I was 50 year old, but I've been a restaurant owner in capital for over 50 years. I was a strong proponent of measure L at the time and very much a supporter today that its mandates are met. Measure L was not an advisory measure. It was put forth with the specific spending limitations on the city or prospective transportation proposals. For me and for many others, the overriding reason that measure L was drafted and received the majority of votes by capital residents was one of safety for not only its residents, but also for other county residents and for visitors from outside the county who will be traveling to from and within capital. Dumping walkers and riders and runners on to narrow crowded busy and very steep streets, starting at one end of capital all the way to the other end, as the RTC would like to do, is extremely unsafe even for the young and fit, but downright dangerous and possibly illegal for accommodating the elderly physically challenged. The wheelchair and walker bound pedestrians, let alone for young moms pushing their baby strollers. Measure L supporters recognize that the city does not and cannot direct what happens on the tracks or the trestle that the RTC rightfully controls. As much as some white 12 capital voters cannot dictate what can go on to the trestle, though we hope that the RTC will at a minimum attach a path on the trestle with or without tracks nearby similar to what happens to the trestle over the San Lorenzo River by the boardwalk. However, the capital voters can and they did establish rules on how city funds can be used as well as what can happen on city streets. Measure L amount dates that no city funds can be used to transport pedestrians and bikers through its again narrow busy crowded and very steep streets. And by no city funds, that means no city funds expenditures for planning and construction, as well as no funds for staff time related to diverting walkers and bicycles onto the streets. And no funds mean no expenditures of funds, even if the RTC promises to or would eventually reimburse the city. Lastly, I expect that some of the council members may have personal feelings more in line with the RTC than with capital voters. They could be legitimately felt positions or regrettably could be done only with political advantages in mind. However, these capital council members must put those personal or political elements aside and instead represent the majority of capital voters who have dues contrary to the RTC. Thank you. Ladies, welcome. Hi. Just for one second, ladies and gentlemen, I am going to ask that we hold our applause. It is really difficult for some people to come up here to the podium and whether it's applause or it's booing or it's cheering or it's hissing, we want to make sure that everyone feels comfortable. So I do ask that we maintain just a general basic sense of decorum without any kind of applause or outburst from the audience. I appreciate it. Hi, welcome. Hi, my name is Deb Molina, and I'm just I'm not going to go on. I wasn't expecting to speak, but I just want to second what he said. Absolutely every word. And I just saw this article in the Aptos Soquel Times B cycle e-bike coming in March to Capitola. And so that just adds a whole other bunch of bicycles on steep, busy, crowded streets when we could be on the trestle that is safe and flat and easy for people to manage. So keeping this in mind, it's just more and more and more reason. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, welcome. Good evening, Mayor Brown and City Council members. I'm Paula Bradley, a resident of Capitola and a cyclist at the Board of Supervisors meeting on Tuesday, March 26. The agenda included the Coastal Rail project, ERR, third segments 10 and 11, and two supervisors including Manu Kunig, who represents District 1 Capitola residents voted against the project. Their actions also jeopardize critical funding for the project, the largest ATP grant ever awarded in the state, $67.6 million, which jeopardizes the entire rail trail project. The rail trail is a key component to developing an integrated transportation system in the county accessible to all. Zero emission rail transportation is the least environmentally damaging public transportation. Transportation emissions are 70% of the county GHG emissions. The zero emission rail project would offset GHG emission many more times than the result of the proposed tree removal. This reduction in transportation related GHG emissions with the rail and trail project is the most effective way to reduce submissive emissions and would be consistent with the county's 2022 climate action and adoption plan. I ask the City Council to continue to support the Coastal Rail project including the ultimate trail design and also by the way I was here for Measure L, which only won by 200 votes. Thank you. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I am asking that we be respectful to our friends and neighbors regardless of if we share the same opinion. Hi, welcome. Hi, Marilyn Garrett. I wasn't going to address the Coastal Trail, but I briefly I'm going to say I did listen to the Board of Supervisors meeting and the environmental impact report. And one of the possible options was to say no project alternative. And that's what I think should take place. I Many people have 5G cell phones. You have cell towers all over the place. And here's some implications of it. I'm reading from wise traditions. This is called the graphene age. Graphene oxide is a compound of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen in variable ratios, which can be formed into ultra thin layers about one enemy of thick. Graphene's high conductivity and flexibility makes it the linchpin of 5G wireless technology. As it is a super absorber of microwaves. Graphene oxide transistors are an every 5G transmission device. The optimal signal multiplication frequency for graphene transistors is 26 gigahertz. The very frequency that the Federal Communications Commission is currently auctioning off. Wi-Fi microwave frequency bands range from 2.4 to 5 gigahertz. Frequencies in the 5G range operate at more potent power densities than those in the 4G range. A recent paper in the annals of CAFE reports by EMF researcher Dr. Menard Hardell indicates that exposure to the high frequencies of power density of 5G results in a host of neurological symptoms such as tinnitus, fatigue, insomnia, emotional distress, skin disorders, and blood pressure variability. Moreover, the high energy consumed by 5G itself is discharged into the air, exposing plants, animals, and humans to unprecedented levels of electricity. And there's more. Researchers in Spain and the UK have found graphene oxide in the COVID vaccines. And I have observed strange transistors like structures in the blood of COVID vaccinated individuals. Thank you. I'll leave you copies of these. Yes, you can leave them to our city clerk. Thank you. Right here with Julia. I want to encourage other people to get up. Ms. Garrett. Thank you. We appreciate your comments. Hi. Brian Peoples with Trail Now. We're a local organization advocating to build the coastal trail from Davenport to Watsonville in a timely, cost-effective, and eco-friendly manner, which is essentially put at a rail bank and build it on where the existing tracks are. Our organization has thousands of local supporters. We've been around for over a decade. I'm an engineer, but I've been involved. I first got involved with the Santa Cruz Transportation Agency over 25 years ago. So we have a lot of expertise in the area of what's going on. And at the end of the day, we've been delaying the process of building the trail because of a misconception of the direction our community needs to go. Now, I want to reiterate or restate that they're correct on Measure L. I didn't know, Alex, that you recommended that they invest time on that. So that definitely I'll see that. But what I want to point out is when the EIR was presented at the supervisor meeting, they specifically said in all the options that the capitol at Tressel can be converted into a trail. And it doesn't need to be rail bank, which will be an interesting conversation, but it doesn't need to be. So it kind of takes you off the bad list. You kind of like you can get the Tressel done and you don't have to be opposing it because at the end of the day, the Tressel cannot have a freight train over it today. And if you ever had passenger rail on it, you'd have to tear it down and build a new one. So essentially, the county has recommended for each one of the plans to build the trail. So it kind of takes you guys out of the debate in the sense of saying, no, we don't want a trail there. There would be no excuse now. No excuse for you to say no. You actually should be advocating for, I think it's about $7 million to convert into a trail. The RTC years ago, Guy Preston, a former RTC executive director, actually came out and laid out how to reconvert, figure it, upgrade it, and built the trail. And they came up with a number. So there's actually no reason for the capitol at Tressel City Council to oppose it. It's every single one of the plans. It's included. So it'll be interesting, the rail banking aspects of it. The other thing I'll just note that we should not allow roaring camp to stop us. We don't need roaring camp to tell us that we can't use the corridor. We need to use it now, trail now. Let's build it now. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Pupils. Ladies and gentlemen, please, I ask one more time that we please maintain decorum in the room. We wouldn't allow people to boo. We wouldn't allow people to hiss. And so we are asking that we ensure that everyone who comes to give public comment get fair and equal experience. Hi, Mr. Ruth. Welcome. Yeah, I never thought I'd have to say this to a city council in Capitola or a city manager. But it appears you guys need to be reminded, especially Kristen and Mr. Peterson. You have a moral and legal obligation to follow the city ordinances. That's why you were elected. That's all. Thank you for your comments. I don't want to end public comment or close public comment. I believe legally we have the right to do that. And I certainly do not want to. But I am asking politely and kindly that you please follow the rules of decorum within the room. I don't think I'm asking much. We wouldn't expect allow people to boo or hiss. And I'm also asking that people not clap and cheer. If you agree with something that someone is saying, please feel free to raise your hand and we will see that you're agreeing with that. But I am asking that that be the case as we have asked in multiple council meetings in the past, please. And thank you. Welcome. Thank you, council. My name is Barry Scott. I live in Aptos. I'm a member, board member of Friends of the Rail and Trail. And I need to say that there is no, there is a need to rail bank if ever the tracks were removed or conversion. It's not true that you can do the conversion. Without rail bank. But I really want to speak to the measure L, which is a poorly written and difficult to enforce. Measure that was opposed by the entire city council when it first came into a vote, because it ties your hands and it's it's kind of impossible to facilitate the two parts of it that were described by Mr. Burke, I believe. The city of capital shall take all steps necessary to preserve and utilize the quarter and trestle for active transportation. It's not city property. It belongs to the RTC. The land under the bridges and the bridges themselves are RTC property and the city. You can't a city can't tell the county what to do. Further. And so we need, you know, we need to respect that. And I think the city council is doing the right thing by working with the RTC. It's it's job. Part B, no city of capital or department shall spend any funds related to yada yada any trail of a detour the trail on a capital city streets or sidewalks. How do you determine what is a detour and what is just an improvement, whether it's cliff or Monterey or any other part of any street. The city council is making improvements today with or without the coastal trail is an improvement. And why would we expect the city council to do nothing and leave unsafe parts of the city unsafe when improvements could be made. So I support the behaviors and choices that this council has made me. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, welcome. It's great to see so much participation about various events. And what if in October this room is flooded by the ocean. It'd be a nice place to look at the flooding from the bridge. So I'm just curious how many people have seen the film leave the world behind. I believe that was financed and directed by a previous president or previous president Barack Obama. It happened a couple of days ago. 130 in the morning. How is that going to impact the other side of the United States? I've been told that 4900 commercial vehicles were crossing that bridge every day. And that equates to an average of $28 billion in commerce a day. That's over 10 trillion a year. That's kind of affect our supply chain. People seem to think that California and Capitola is its own island. It may be again sometime soon. So, you know, I do appreciate that we have three minutes of 151. I was at the and back meeting a couple of weeks ago. I did call and leave a message recently. About listening to the six times that I spoke at that meeting. So I did get a call back today from the secretary. It's not immediately available to the public, but I'm just kind of curious what I said. So there's a lot of things that people just don't seem to be aware of. I believe all the people in this room voted for all you folks thinking you guys can actually make some strong decisions. And because this is a charter city, you're controlled by a city manager that was not elected. But he's controlling you folks. So what else is going on that the citizens aren't aware of? And I'm glad I spoke at the end because no one else is bringing out what's going on. You know, that was an act of war. You treat them or terrorism, but it's an act of war. I mean, the Esquire, Sir Francis got key. He was trying to negotiate the, well, getting back to prisoners of war. And he was told that, oh, don't worry about it because there were over 300 British ships. So the reason that the flag was still there is at the time when the United States was being formed, there were people that believed enough in this country to be blown to smithereens and just moved out of the way. So what's really going to happen when some serious issues happen? I'm saying there's so much deception going on. Somebody got to talk about it. So thank you. Thank you. Last call for public comment. Seeing none, we will close public comment. As a reminder, we cannot take action or address any items that are not on tonight's agenda. So we will be moving on now to items. Six staff and city council comments and we'll start with staff. If we want, we can take a second while those who have chosen to leave are able to do so. Yeah, Mr. same manager, we will go ahead now with staff comments. We do have one staff comment online, I believe, or you know, the director is a little bit ill until she is attending virtually this evening. Sure. Being mayor and council, can you hear me okay? We can. Okay. I just wanted to give you an update. I'm sure as you've been driving around town, you've been seeing the new B cycle. The stations around town where they're getting installed currently. We plan on having 18 stations installed throughout the city. They've been placed so that there's access to bikes throughout the city. And in areas of higher concentration of residents, we've placed more. More of the stations, the initial rollout will have 50 bikes and it can go up to 100 bikes under contract and then more bikes can come as needed. And I just wanted to draw to your attention that this is this initial layout of the stations was approved by the planning commission and they gave us flexibility to approve movement of stations within one block. And it's really a trial run. We're going to they've got really great data in order to track the different stations and their use. And over time, it's just going to be an evolving system to make sure we're getting as much ridership as possible. And then the correct location so folks have access to them. And the other thing I just while we're discussing it. There is going to be a ribbon cutting for this at 8 on April 9 at 10 30am. And it'll be along cliff drive located in the public parking that overlooks our beautiful capital award, which is coming along. And that's my update tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Any additional staff comments. Seeing none. We'll go now to city council comments. We'll start at this end. Yeah, I just wanted to report to council that I attended the youth action network last Saturday. In partnership of United way, the youth action network is a group that we as a city have partnered with and we had over 15 students attend to learn about local government and how to get involved. We had representatives from all four cities and the county, as well as our county clerk who talked about how to get the students engaged and prepared to vote. So it was a great turnout and I hope that we can continue the partnership throughout the years. And I'm sure you'll hear more about upcoming events. Thank you. Thank you. On this end. Go ahead. First of all, I'd like to say it was nice to see everybody come out and give their opinions. It's important that we hear from everybody. So that's, that's greatly appreciated. And secondly, I've had quite a few people ask me to be by location and docking stations and I was glad to be to say it's going to be reviewed. I'm not going to find the best locations. And I just want to let people know that we will be moving them as needed in place and a more effective. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. I just had one thing I will be willing to work with staff. A volunteer for PD. Let me know that somebody out there wrote a anthem for Capitola. And he has been playing it live out on the beach. And I want to invite him to one of our city council meetings and have him perform. So I'll get it set up. Thanks. I just want to share briefly. Yesterday I had the opportunity to take part in the groundbreaking for the bluffs at 44th Avenue. It's a 36 unit 100% affordable housing development consisting of one, two and three bedroom units. They're expecting development to take place over the next year and in the next year we'll have at least 36 new neighbors. It's an exciting opportunity for us to provide truly inclusive neighborhood and housing for all. And I was just excited to be a part of it and want to extend my thank you to our planning commissioners and our city staff. Katie and others for all the work that they've done to bring this to to where it is today and look forward to welcoming those new neighbors in the coming year. All right, no further council comments. Okay, we will move on now to our consent agenda, which is item seven. All of the items on the consent agenda will be enacted in one motion. If there is any, any questions or comments from council before we move to public comment. Nope, any public comment on the consent agenda. Seeing none will entertain emotion. I'll move the consent agenda. I'll second it. Motion and a second all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. Any abstentions. Motion carries unanimously. Move on to item eight, which is general government and public hearings and we'll start with a resolution adopting our parks policy. We'll turn it over to Nikki. You. Okay, good evening mayor council members. All right, so the item of each night is a, the park permit policy. And so, currently, any of the spaces and uses spaces and let me going in. Okay, we'll see if it's better. All right, so. I'll just start from the beginning. So the spaces and city parks are currently operating on a first come first serve basis. Recreation does manage the rentals of athletic fields and reports. Such as our tennis court or soccer fields. However, if somebody were to want to throw a birthday party or a small gathering, currently it's on a first come first serve basis. The process that it is right now to host a small group for those gatherings. It does cause conflict among the public. We have individuals that would come in, inquire about the process, try and make the plans in the park, discovered that they don't have a process. And then potentially come in conflict with things that are already existing or scheduled. The process also opens up the city to liability as individuals when they plan out their potential birthday parties or gatherings in the park. They often need to have minute equipment. That goes for liability for the city if there isn't a exchange of expectations for the use of those. That equipment in the parks. Is the sounds. Is it hard for y'all. Okay. It's mildly distracting but as long as you can hear me, it's all good. Okay. All right, so at the last council meeting in March 14. We've introduced an ordinance repealing and replacing capital and municipal code 12.4 zero. The new the new code creates a process for the public to reserve parks people for their small gatherings that is under 74 or less individuals and for non expected activity. Next slide please. All right, so at the last council meeting comes a modify the proposed code to provide for a park use policy. The benefit of a policy is that it allows the city to make changes in response to changing landscapes of parks or any. Unnecessary issues that may occur from the time of the adoption of the ordinance for the park policy allows for a little bit more flexibility without having to go back and change the ordinance. And so the policy that was included in the staff packet is also accompanied by a capital, a reservation park area packet and so an individual that will to approach the city in order to get a reservation for a park space. Part of that staff public stream would be the park area packet that was also included in the case agenda packet. The packet includes information such as fees or the reservation of the spaces also details the maps of locations that are available for reservation. And then the terms of use which is the language that is currently in the actual policy as well. Next slide please. All right, so the information that would be in the packet would be information like this. So this is a grid that would detail the spaces that are available the capacities for each one of those spaces. The hourly rate for both resident and non residents, and then many amenities that might be found in those park spaces. This also element for council is proposed fees for the use of these spaces if council does with that recommendation this evening, but at a later date, these proposed fees would come back with the council to be incorporated into the schedule. All right, and then this is the other half of the chart as it is in the packet that includes the rest of their parts, including new book ultra park. And then also identifies the parks that are not reservable or except currently under construction with the hope that one day we'll have the opportunity for that as well. Next slide please. And then, in order to help make it really clear, both in the policy as well as in the packet are images of the parks with the detailed spaces that would be available for reservation. Next slide please. And then here's some others again spaces that are available for reservation. Next slide please. And also included in the packet is additional information that details parts of policy and with the emotional document for the public visual images that detail what would be allowable equipment regarding barbecues. All right, now, as I said earlier, the current schedule does not set parks based rental fee and the sort of proposed fees so directed by council that will turn an amendment to adopt the fees schedules to reflect the proposed park use fees. The recommending action point is to approve a resolution adopting the city pregnant policy for direct after return to the city council with amendments to be scheduled to reflect proposed park use fees. And with that, we have a question. Thank you. Questions. Yes, go ahead. Thank you. Have a couple of questions. One is, why are propane barbecues allowed. So, for the ability to be able to cut off the fuel source. If you have a coal fireplace. It is the safest circumstances for it to be an established firing city capital does not have any of those. So, for an individual to bring in a portable coal. One of those little barbecues that are like it presents a fire hazard in the event that it were to be pumped over and the event of wind and some of our parks, there is no access to water or anything like that in order to control a fire that might potentially get out of control in a gas powered device, the fuel can be cut. Thanks. And then my second question is about the schedule curious how the fees were determined. Yeah. So, in proposing the fees. I think it would be a good idea to look at all the surrounding agencies to kind of see what it would cost to go to the county and go to the city of Santa Cruz. And then taking into consideration what kind of amenities are at each one of those sites in comparison to other agencies and so the proposed fees as they are here. The area to have picnic tables as part of their amenities. And then some of the observable spaces are just simply flat open grass spaces. Another aspect that was taken into consideration for the development is recognizing the amount of work that it goes into caring for those particular spaces. So, for example, the Esplanade that is a highly impacted area. And typically, when you see development, those kind of that's a variable taken in consideration. Thank you. Thank you for doing this. And my question is, does do all of these parks have the ability to have a fire, what's called the barbecue a jump house do they all have access to those things. So, the barbecues are only allowed in Monterey Park and Jade Street Park. The bounce houses are only allowed in, I'm sorry, this is easier way, not allowed in Esplanade or McGregor. I'm just curious why are barbecues allowed in certain places and are certain places. Yeah, so I believe that that. Well, the main reason is the having accessibility to that park area and then what is available around it. Having barbecues at Noble Gulch could be potential challenge for that the accessibility to that area. But there is significantly better resources in order to attend to a potential fire in that area as well as getting the barbecue having access to like roll a barbecue to that space. So, we're like firefighters to get there basically, I just don't think it makes a lot of sense for us to, you know, arbitrarily put a limit assuming what people can cannot carry to a spot right. Like, why, why regulated at all, people feel comfortable in a barbecue across the street. It seems that the primary drivers would be safety and fire risk. So, when you're looking at Esplanade Park, you know, obviously if you love congestion, having open flames there, I think some of the sites are kind of more naturalistic and difficult, you know, like firefighting conditions in Noble Gulch Park.  I don't know. I don't know what fire access there, but I might be wondering if you consider adding. Actually, so yeah, I guess I would just say, you know, look into it. I don't need it to come back or anything, but the more barbecues is better. Thank you. Nice, Mayor Brooks. Do you have additional questions? Questions on this end? Council Member Clark. Hi, yeah, when we initially brought this up, we were speaking about Esplanade Park, and I thought we were kind of an agreement that we kind of held it to a little bit of a higher level because of where it is and how important it is to us. You tell me the difference between you giving them a permit and then having to get a special event permit, what the difference is. Yeah, sure. So for to be eligible for a park permit, you would need to be within the set capacity by the policy for the use of Esplanade Park in particular. And so to use that space can also for non expressive activities. So anything the way the special event permit or the special events ordinance is written as that once it hits that threshold of 75 or over. Anybody that's interested in using that space would need to begin a conversation with the police department for a special event permit. Yeah, that's why I was thinking that that is one of the locations that I think we need to hold at a higher threshold. It's such an important place so highly used and it's us giving them those permits just everybody's pretty impactful on our beach users Esplanade users. I guess that is kind of what I was going to ask is I kind of thought we weren't into having Esplanade Park on that list. Okay, so is it going to remove one of this. And if that was a request I wasn't clear that that was the request last time but that could definitely the policy could definitely be adjusted for that that area in particular makes me pretty uncomfortable for people renting it out but I thought we were mostly in agreeance on that but and to follow up on that it's because of the impact with garbage for public works and the public safety factor so the police should know about what's going on down there. I thought that should be included to a special events permit. I guess I just don't see what the difference would be with the, you know, 50 people at Esplanade compared to McGregor with safety or garbage. I'm not seeing the clear reason. I think it's just an extra eye on the on the event and knowing what's happening down there. Just a quick sorry to interrupt gentlemen just a quick reminder we're still at questions and then we have to go to public comment before we bring it back to discussion. Any further questions for staff. I have one more question. Go ahead. Just a quick clarification. The resident versus non resident refers to some capital right. Like you have to live in capital to get the resident right. Correct. So the, however, in recreation we do extend the resident rate to include the so called union elementary school district as kind of an additional sphere. So the for anybody that registers in our junior guard program, for example, the if they're in the so called union elementary school district, they are considered under a resident rate. So is that if you're registered or a school or have a family member registered for one of the schools in that district, or are we talking about a geographical area with any resident living there. It's based on the GSI for the so called union elementary school district. So if you live within the city or the school that you get the resident right. Got it. Okay. Thank you. Any further questions. Alright, saying number bring this item to public comment. Are there any members of the public that would like to comment on this particular item. Hi, welcome. I would like some clarification of what the fees are for because I think a public parks. Being and I like to go to jade street park for one are for the public to go to free that anybody can afford to go to the park and by charging fees. People who are low income may be excluded. So I'm not sure what you're talking about also looking at the picture of what crossing out the barbecue places that you see at some parks where people can bring their own wood and maybe something on a little thing and what would be permitted. Look expensive. Maybe I'm misinterpreting it but I think a public parks for the public. Where anyone can go without being excluded by cost. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Mary Beth Cahalan and I do a lot of your events. So the park I'm concerned about of course is the Espinade Park. So I just spent, oh, five hours plus today trying to put together the beach festival permit. And as we're going over it, we're trying to decide now with the fees for the grass. Do we put our, our things that we do chalk art, children's art, the, just the, any of our tents on the grass, just move to the sidewalk. Well, it'll cost us $400 to rent your grass for the weekend. So at that point we decided we're going to put all of our stuff in the sidewalk. So what happens now we have now blocked the sidewalk next to the beach wall. So if you're going to include that as an expense for these bigger events, aka the foundation car show, then we are going to have to pay more for this. Now, if that is going to be if we do a special event permit that is excluded from the fee, that is something that needs to be thought out or processed. The other thing going through all this new permit information is you have things in there that say we can't keep things overnight. Well, how does that affect the art in line? How are we going to not keep our tents overnight? So there are certain certain things that have happened in this so we can rent the grass on the Espinade. That's great. So I'm going to rent my space now for the Wednesday night concerts. So now how are you going to designate who's going to sit where for the Wednesday night concerts because they paid their fee. There are just certain things in this that need to be rethought of. And we need to know before we turn our permits in because it depends on how we do a logistically our maps, which is something that is required with our permits. That being said, I can't wait to see what you come up with. Thanks. And I do understand renting it and having a fee if you're doing a birthday party. But if I have an event and I choose not to rent the stage, but my event is still in that area and somebody rents it for a birthday party. How fair is that when I've just paid the fee for my special event? So there you go. Thanks. Additional public comment? Oh, yes. My knee's out. So I'm standing a little bit. I wasn't planning to speak tonight, but I just wanted to follow up on a couple of the comments about Espinade Park. I have a lot of visitors that come here. And when we go down to the beach, you know, you've got kids and you've got surfers that use that lawn area for their surfboards. They throw a blanket out and they let the kids play. The little ones play on the grass. The older ones can play in the sand to do the beach.  I think that would cause a whole lot of disappointment for our visitors, our residents with families and that kind of thing. So I just wanted to throw that out there. Thank you. Any additional public comment on this item? Yes. Hi, welcome. My name is Cheryl Ban. I'm a 40 year resident of Capitola. I wasn't planning on speaking on this. I want to speak on something else, but I have a question about Noble Park, Noble Gulch Park. And if I want to use the picnic table down there, I would have to rent it. Is that how I'm understanding it? If I wanted to have a birthday party, I would then have to rent that. Okay. All right. I also believe that the land, I do think public land can be public land. And I agree with the lady that spoke in terms of fees for people that it really does curtail people being able to have the ability to use the public lands. Thank you for that. Thank you. Hi, welcome. Hi there. My comment is about fees at public parks. And I'm thinking about the children, you know, the children that are different in economics and demographics. And I just think it's not fair to some of the kids that can afford the access. And I think the access, if it's going to be truly public, we shouldn't have certain roles for certain incomes. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any additional comments? I'm just saying none. We'll bring it back to council. And before we begin our deliberation and discussion, I'd just like for staff to confirm that we are not putting fees on general public use of the parks for any reason. And we are only talking about individuals who would like to reserve specific spaces for bounce houses or barbecues. But if anyone wanted to have a birthday party in a park, they're welcome to. I want to ensure that this space is reserved for their specific event. Can you confirm if that is the case? Yes, that is correct. That if you wanted the assurance that the space would be available for you at the time that you want to hold your gathering, the permit process would exist for that specific reason. But an individual could still do a small gathering with no equipment without doing the reservation process. Thank you. Another point of clarification, this is separate from the SCP process. There was a speaker who was suggesting that this was in addition to special event permit process. This is a separate process. So you wouldn't need to get both a park use permit and a special event. So if you had a special event permit, it's all encompassing. Correct. Okay. And they wouldn't be charged. A separate fee. No, no, the park use permit. This is for small gatherings. So as proposed, that sounds like we may take out Esplanade Park Esplanade Park was for groups of 50 or less. Obviously, special events are for 200 or more. So they're sort of incongruous. So you don't, you don't get charged. The park use fee and a special event. What are the. Okay, I will save my comments other than to say I think I agree with my fellow council members about removing Esplanade Park. It sounds like it's more hassle than it's worth both for us and for the public. And then I'll turn it over to council members for comments and I'll start at this end council member Peterson. Do you have any comments? Can I ask questions? Yeah, you can ask questions. I just wanted to clarify when you said that the question was, will they be charged if they go there? And then one of your last comments said that if they don't bring equipment, but just to clarify, people can go to parks and bring their barbecues at any time without paying or reserving anything. Right. At the moment, I don't believe that is the case. We were consistently having this ongoing issue of people asking what kind of equipment that they can bring into the parks and granted a little confused with that for everything. But I don't think at the moment there's anything that says that that's allowable in our parks. Well, is there anything that says it's not allowable? I think that would be the bigger question, right? I think it's some of our parks that does post no barbecue, but I'm not sure which one. So that's the way the rules work. We have specific rules around barbecues and fire pits on the beach. I know that. So I understand based on location that there should be barbecues or not barbecues. But what I'm not understanding is why somebody would need to pay to have a barbecue where barbecues are allowed. I think that that's something we can work on internally. I don't think that's the primary concern. I think the primary concern is honestly around the bounce houses or the because bounce houses primarily just because there's the liability associated with them. And so we haven't allowed bounce houses in the parks. But with with this, we would be able to allow bounce house, make sure the city's identified were protected and it all works. We can look into the barbecue situation because I understand where you're coming from the question around that. My other question about the barbecues and questions slash comment is, is it really charcoal really that much more dangerous than propane? Because I agree with what one of the speakers said here that prone pain barbecue does cost a lot more than a used Weber, you know. And so you have to buy the propane that barbecue itself costs a lot more. I think one of those cans is very achievable for basically any income, whereas a propane is the one shown or any propane is a lot more. It's just a disposal. It's disposal of the calls having been a kid who actually in a park when I was little, I stepped on calls and somebody had just poured off next to it. Pretty good. That's that's the problem. We don't have ways to dispose. So that's like pretty common practice across, you know, the county and the state to not allow charcoal. I just remember thinking when I was a kid playing at parks, it seems like there's always those little metal boxes for charcoal. And yeah, well, so that's it. If you have a permanent fire pit or permanent barbecue, then that's usually where those are allowed, but we don't have those right now. So without those, these rules are we did pull them from another jurisdiction. So if you have the permanent fire pit or barbecue, yes, charcoal makes sense. But if you don't have, don't have it, it becomes a lot more problematic to ensure that it's properly disposed of. Okay. And then regarding the fees, I'm just curious, does anybody have any rough estimate of how much money this is really going to generate? Because I'm just wondering, you know, we've heard three people talking about equity issues and is it really worth it to us to have fees? You know, if it's going to be an inconsequential amount to the city either way, and we may be, you know, reducing some amount of lower income people from the community. Generally fees for the use of public property are meant to cover the cost of the city processing that fee. Staff time, including maintenance required for those areas, which might be more if there are more amenities like picnic tables or what have you. The council always has the option to waive those fees if that's what you would prefer to do. However, the law right now is that we can't charge to make money for the cost of the use of public property. It's really the cost to staff of processing the applications and the fees. And I also just wanted to clarify, because I feel like it might be getting a little lost, that this process, this permitting process is really to decrease the conflict where people think that they can use a space and they can't or there's people that are trying to use the same space. This doesn't prohibit access to anybody. It just says you have reserved this space and you can use it for four hours or what have you. It's not, we're not going, the city's not going to require payment to use any park. Even if areas of that park are reserved, the public can use the rest of the park free of charge. But it does sort of create a pay to play during those hours that they are reserved. Well, yeah, but if somebody pays for the park, then people who have not paid for the park cannot use that section. That's the point of the reservation. Yes, that is the point of the reservation. Yeah, so. But to clarify, if someone's already set up in that park and they didn't pay for it, others can use that space still. No, not if they reserved it. I know, but to your point, what you're saying is it's pay to play because once someone pays for it, other people can't use it. But even if we weren't charging people and someone's already holding a birthday party there, other people can't use it. So we're not making people pay. Regardless of whether people are paying to reserve a space or not, once someone's in a given space, other people cannot use it regardless. Well, I mean, technically, people could, you know, occupy the same general area, but, you know, not the exact same space, right? Like in this case, people could say, hey, you can't sit next to us, we reserved it, even if there's empty grass. Okay. So I think overall this policy needs a little, a little work. I think we have some concerns, as you can see, I agree that we should not include Esplanade Park at all as an option. I think that in regards to the fee schedule in and of itself, that we're not identifying which of these areas can have a barbecue to Council Member Peterson's point, and which can have the bounce houses. I think that would be nice to have it clear on the rental fees. We also brought up at our last Council meeting about a fee waiver and I believe staff said there was something about scholarships or there might be a way to alleviate that. But at the end of the day, if we have no scholarships to offer there to, you know, scholarships come and go and what if we run out and all of these what ifs. I'd like for staff to come back with a clear process on what the fee waiver to families would look like and who those families could be, would they be resident only or non resident. I think we just have a lot more work or things to think about that. Also, you know, again, we you you made light. Our city manager made light of which parts we don't know which parts are even allowed to have barbecues and I feel like I'm creating a policy where we might not even be able to have barbecues legally based off of old policies at some of these locations. I'd like for clarification on that. Also, on the policy, it mentioned the bounce house permit, but and then and insurance information, you know, what are those fees, how do you access those, you know, access that documentation. I'm just curious about that. And then who to call like if I spent the $100 to rent, I don't see any language of like, who are we going to call do we call PD we don't we're not staff during the weekend so who's that. And then in overall, if I'm just looking at capacity I don't see an up to 30 or an up to 74 or anything like that. What I'm seeing is if there's 20 people it's $13 but for some of it if it's 30 people it's $12. And then if it's 4013 it's kind of all over and I think consistency would go a long way, especially for folks who are going to want to rent this these spots. I have real concerns about charging folks for space I know it's about, ultimately, creating process, which we're here to create process and policy and procedure. But I want to make this as equitable and purposeful of a policy that works for everybody. So if it's 20 people, maybe it's $12 an hour and then 30 people it's $13 and you just make it really easy on yourself to. And I look at 2125, you know, I think we could just make it an easier process for us when we're charging hourly rates. And then lastly, I think it's important to identify resident and non resident. We want people to be able to access this information easily. So those are my comments and so I'm not sure that I could approve something without seeing something more clearly come back to us with. So if I can't approve anything tonight, I would like to see something come back that's more clear. Thank you. Comments on this. Yeah, I have a couple comments. There isn't a state park county or city that doesn't charge for these types of things and it all comes back to you have to pay for the garbage to be picked up. And I think it's important to be aware of the maintenance and the care. But if we start letting some people get a scholarship or whatever, when our own BIA or somebody doing events for capsule, they have to pay for it. I think you should establish something that's really clear. You pay for it or you don't pay for it, but it can be kind of hard if we pick and choose. Something we need to make it a little bit clearer because it's kind of cloudy right now. And there are quite a few parks that specifically say that you cannot have a barbecue or a fire on at least four or five in the city. We just need to make that clear and point out where they are. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I think I was under the impression this kind of two sided comment slash question that the capacity line was the up to right. Okay. And then the amount per hour was basically based on the amenities not on the amount of people that would be attending. Um, yeah, I would like to remove as one odd park from this list. And, and I do want to reiterate that this is being put in place to keep the city safe as well so that if there are structures like a bounce house or a barbecue. Um, those that have wanted to use this space exclusively for their specific time period that's that's totally on them and that's great. But that the area the surrounding areas are completely usable and free to all. Again, keeping the equity thing in mind. I do does sound like there's some holes here that we could use some filling and I welcome you to come back to us again. Thank you. Thank you. All right. So it sounds like there might still be questions. Um, do we have a specific direction that we're looking to your staff? Because right now it sounds like I'm hearing that there's things we're not ready to act on, but do we have specific direction in order to get us to a place where we might be able to act on something in the future. So what I, do you have something to say? Um, if it would be helpful to the council, I've been taking notes and I can read back what I think the direction is. And then you folks can jump in and correct me where I've gotten it wrong. So we're removing Esplanade Park, which means that people can use the space freely. However, if you will not be able to reserve any of those spaces and Esplanade Park for exclusive use. So the council would like for the policy to more clearly identify which areas of the parks are going to allow bounce houses and barbecues. It appears that there's some desire for a fee waiver procedure. I'm not exactly sure how the council would like to see that come back. There seems to be a desire for a process, but I would like some clarification on that. And then contact information for who the people reserving spaces can call if something happens during their reservation. And if I may add mayor, some some consistency around the fees in general, I didn't hear that repeated. I'm not sure about the amount as well as clarification on insurance costs, and I'm pretty sure a bounce house is $10 or whatever for that insurance will be exactly a finite amount as well, perhaps. No, I'm not sure about insurance. But I just to the fee issue. The staff is working on a fee. And so the fees that we're talking about here are actually going to come back as part of a fee schedule at a later date. So we certainly appreciate the input and you will certainly have the opportunity to review those with more detail once that process is complete. And perhaps is that when we would see the fee waiver option. I know Nikki had suggested there was an opportunity previously. So could we see that come back? Certainly we can add that I was intending to possibly work with staff to add that to this the park use policy. But we could include a waiver provision in the fee schedule as well for general city fees. I do want to echo what council member clerk said just about the difference between a special events permit that doesn't have access to a fee waiver or scholarship opportunity. So I think we just have to be mindful and clear of like, this is for a birthday party with kids, etc. And it comes out of the, you know, ECYP or I don't know something that very clear that it's maybe education or early childhood related or something like that. Just a food for that. But I'm sure you have a process, Nikki, because you're great at that. Those are all. Yeah, you got it all. Thanks tomorrow. Other comments. Okay. Our city manager could clarify. Do I need to request any kind of motion for this or can we just just give it to staff? You can just give it to staff at this point. I think we have good direction. Okay. All right. Any further comments? All right, then we will move on. Thank you, Nikki. We'll move on to item 8B, automated license plate reader cameras, and we will turn it over to the chief. Welcome. Okay. And I think we have John Anderson from Flock. He should be tuning in if he's available. Okay. Good evening, mayor and council. Let me first by saying that this is actually Captain Ryan's assignment, and she unfortunately had an injury. And so I almost had to order her to stay away from here. So she's recovering from her injury, but she definitely wanted to be here to present this. So I'm going to step in for her. We were able to, she presented this to our chief's council last weekend. And so you had an opportunity there. And then, like I said, we're here tonight to present about Flock safety. So with that first slide. So the first thing is what is Flock safety? So Flock itself is actually a company that provides ALRP, which is license plate reader data. And it also provides cameras that can collect vehicle description for police departments for two different things. The first thing is it's used for investigative purposes. And then the second piece is that it also has a live feature that if a vehicle that's wanted by law enforcement, stolen vehicle, a vehicle of high value, it'll alert officers that are a part of the Flock system. So currently there's about 38 states that have Flock cameras and their jurisdictions. About 1,500 cities. There's 500 different police departments. It's very widely used in California and primarily the Bay Area. I've listed a bunch of quite a few police departments here. Watsonville PD just recently acquired some Flock cameras. Santa Cruz PD, I think they put it on hold, but they're actually planning to put in eight cameras. I believe Scott's Valley is looking at some Flock cameras and then CHP is also looking at this technology as well. But we have quite a bit of the technology here locally here in Santa Cruz County and then some of the surrounding counties. Next slide. So these are the challenges currently in law enforcement. Staffing is always a challenge for us. So whether it's people, all police departments are looking for staffing. We're also dealing with people that are on workers' comp vacations. So we're always dealing with challenges with staffing. Technology itself is definitely a force multiplier for us. We see that as definitely the future for law enforcement investigations. And then we also believe in trust and transparency. Those are vital things for any police department. So the opportunity with Flock is that it really is a force multiplier. It puts stationary cameras throughout the city and it collects data and then that data can be either researched by officers or it can provide live information about if there were like wanted vehicles that come into our jurisdiction. And it captures a backup line. And then part of it too is that it allows us to engage with the community through the chief's council and it shows that the activity that we're doing. So next slide. So how does the ALRP technology work and how does it benefit our jurisdiction? So a couple of things. I'll talk about a long-term study that happened up in Vacaville. But really when these cameras are in place, they become a deterrent. So believe it or not, the jurisdictions that these cameras have been deployed in, they've shown drops in auto theft, crimes have been solved and so it enhances our community by becoming a deterrent in some ways. It also allows our patrol and investigations units to have access to information. So if we have a bank robbery, they can go on the cameras and actually if we have a vehicle description or if we have a license plate, we can immediately start running that information and putting that information out. It's also used for missing person. We also get like Silver Alerts or the Amber Alerts. Those are all information that can be put into that system. And then like I said, it also provides those real-time alerts for vehicles of interest and stolen vehicles that are inputted into our national, it's NCIC, which is a national system, that gets updated every day and that information is accessible to the officers. And what happens is that information is put in the back end of the flock technology and it's actively looking for those vehicles that are out there. Next slide. So this would be an example of what an officer would see if there was a real-time activation. So if this would be an example, it would be either like a stolen vehicle or a vehicle that was maybe involved in a robbery of a Silver Alert missing person. So this would be the alert that the officer could potentially get. They get the alerts one of two ways. So it's a program that works in the background in the vehicles. So we have MDCs in our vehicles, which displays the calls for service, who's in service. They can run individuals on the computer. So this is a program that runs in the back. It also allows the officers and they can set the kind of parameters to be alerted on their cell phone. So as well, so if there's a vehicle that comes in to our jurisdiction that hits one of our camera, it'll let them know where the vehicle came in. It'll alert them and then they have to then take an action to either look for the vehicle. They can disregard it. If it's something, again, depending on the value of what the alert is, they then make that determination if they're going to either go after it or maybe if it's a stolen vehicle and it pings on 41st Avenue and they're down the village handling another call, they're going to let that go. So that's the live alerts and then the next one. Then this is the other thing that's a little bit different from, there's the ALRP and then there's the vehicle recognition. So part of the flock technology is that it's called fingerprint technology. And essentially what it does is as the cameras are gathering data, it's also gathering data about the vehicle. So if it's a sedan, if it's a SUV, the make, the model, the color, if there's unique stickers. And so part of that is that if we have just a general description of a vehicle, say a good example would be like a Honda Pilot from the investigation that we had a couple of months ago, we could put what general information that we have into that database and then if we're, we have to have relationships with the different agencies and if we have access to their information and they allow us access to it, we can search that whatever database that we have authority to go into for that kind of identifying things. That information then the officer can sit down and go through and see if any of it matches and we look at direction of travel of vehicles and those type of things. So that's a unique thing about this technology that's very, very beneficial. And it can go, if there's damage on a bumper or something like that, it can be as detailed as that. Next. So this would be how an officer, so this would be like a general way if an officer were to run a, an SUV, like a silver SUV. This would be the, would look like the results that would come back if we didn't have a license plate. So it would just give you a general idea of what, you know, the parameter that you want to access and it would give you every, every vehicle that went through there. The data itself is only retained for 30 days in the flock system and then immediately purges. If we want to enter a new vehicle into like, if we had a, like a bank robbery, a supervisor can enter that vehicle into the system is like a hot list and then we can set the parameters how long that vehicle is going to stand a system to send alerts out. And more than likely it wouldn't be much more than maybe a 24-hour period because as an investigation goes on, we become, if it becomes still, we have to kind of back off on what methods that we can use to actively go after if we're searching for someone. So next. So this would be kind of an idea of what we want to do with our cameras. It's kind of like a protective bubble around the city. We look at all the areas that are coming into the city jurisdiction. We've identified 10 locations. There's only nine that are up there right now. We were going to put one on 41st Avenue as well. And so this would be an idea of kind of doing a protective bubble around the city. The cameras at this phase, we were all pointed into the city jurisdiction. So all the cameras would catch the vehicles going into the city jurisdiction, not necessarily out. If we were going to want to like take this to like the next level, we would do the second phase where you could get the cameras going out of the jurisdiction. But at this point, we feel it's the most prudent thing to get the vehicles that are coming into the jurisdiction. The different cameras, there's a variety of different applications that we can put up there. Most of them are put obviously high enough to so people can't banalize them or take them down. They're all stand alone with the exception of the one camera that we're looking at on 41st Avenue. That one has to be actually wired in because it's a multi-linked camera. But all of them are powered by solar. This program is a lease program, so we're not actually purchasing any of this equipment. It's just a lease program. Other companies, they offer to sell you the cameras and then they kind of provide support. I've seen it just seems like every two years the technology is always changing over, so buying technology just seems like a waste. So I think that's the best way to move forward with this is the lease program. Next slide. And then one of the things I think there's a lot of misconceptions about automated license plate readers and what it is and what it is not. And so we just want to make sure that the footage itself is owned by the customer. And it is deleted after 30 days. It's never sold or shared. People have to have permissions to access our equipment. That's something I went back and clarified with. The search, every time someone accesses the information, they have to put in a reason that they search. And so it has to be something on a high level. It's not done for traffic enforcement. It's not a live feed. We do not do facial recognition. We're actually bound by law not to provide any information to immigration enforcement. It's not used for traffic enforcement and it's not a live video. The next thing is that part of this program is that we wanted to provide the community with a transparency portal. And so that's an option that we can add to this. This is something that we put on our website. It basically goes into and I'm sorry you can't really see all the details there. But it goes into what was detected, what was not detected. It talks about the policy, the retention, how many cameras we have, and then what external organizations actually have access to our data. And so that's something that they would provide and we put up there. Another piece of that is that we wanted to kind of highlight success stories if we move forward with this program and kind of highlight those as we kind of move through it. And that is managed by Flock. Next. And so just some examples. So now that we've, since we started working with Flock and looking at this technology, they've allowed us access to the kind of the back end of their technology. And so we've utilized that as of recently for these most recent investigations. And so I kind of wanted to highlight just some successes just early on. So the vehicular manslaughter that we had a few, well it's been a little while now. But that investigation, the investigator went back and we had a vehicle description and we kind of went back and through citizens' cameras we kind of got an idea where the vehicle went. And then we were able to pull through access through Watsonville PD's Flock camera. We had a rough timeline and we were able to kind of get an idea when the vehicle maybe went through that intersection. So we were to pull that data and that's how we were to kind of narrow in on what we believed with the suspect vehicle. And then after knowing that, we were able to kind of put it on notice and then start tracking where that vehicle was going if it went through a Flock system. So that was very beneficial. The most recent Comerica bank robbery, we had very, quite honestly very little information. But we did have a similar crime that happened up in Campbell, I think it was. And so Campbell actually has Flock technology. We got with Campbell PD. We cross-referenced the reports, realized it was very similar. They had cameras. We were able to kind of put some evidence together and realize that the vehicle came back to Capitola and then we were able to place it back in Capitola around that same time. And so again that was very, very instrumental. And then the last one was the Alice Herman murder. Next slide. And so with that, we were able to utilize the Flock data. We knew the suspect's vehicle and we were able to track, you know, when he left the city, when he came in, not our city, but when he left out of the area, went into, up in the Bay Area and we were actually able to track where we believed he actually ultimately left the body. And so it was very, very helpful in us as far as like tracking. And tracking his location, but then we were able to line up his cell data with the GPS through search warrants and stuff and kind of line everything up. So it was really, really helpful. It really provided a good timeline. And then there's a picture of Detective Courier taking him into custody, which was really, really good. Next slide. This is a case study that came out of Vacaville. And I know that John has a little bit more of the background of this, but it really just shows the long-term results here. Vacaville, you know, they put in the cameras and immediately saw a decrease in auto thefts. And there's a quote from the chief there. It's basically the words gotten out and they stay kind of avoid the city, those that are wanting to do crime. So just a little bit about the economics of this. So it's a subscription base. So it's a lease. The cameras themselves are about, they're $3,000 a piece per year. They basically take care of everything. We have to pay a little bit as far as the installation goes. But once they are up and running, it's $3,000. So we're looking at like the 10 cameras. It's a little bit more because we're looking at a little bit wider angle camera for 41st Avenue because it's three lanes. All the money itself, there's no general fund money that's being asked for at this point. This is all money that's coming from the supplemental law enforcement funding that we get. We get $100,000 a year. And so this would be, we'd like to fund it, at least through that slough funding for this year and next year. And then we'd like to actively be looking for grants to, well, if we like the program to continue on with it or not. So from a fiscal impact, this is kind of how it breaks down. So year one, we have to, it's 36, 350 for the infrastructure software and the training. And then year two would be the 10 cameras for 32,000. I've also been in a little bit of early conversations with some, with Brian Kirk at the mall. He's very interested in maybe adding a camera. He would pay for a camera and just allow us to have the data for it. And then again, reaching out to some other partners, because you can also do a public part, private partnership with these cameras as well. So he's been very, very interested with all the mall theft that goes on there. And that's, I mean, that's really one of the key elements as we get a lot of folks that come in from over the hill and come in and do theft at the mall and then take off and leave out of town. We really don't have a lot of information. Next slide. And so this was the first item that went before the Capitol Police Chief's Advisory Committee. And that was this last Sunday. So I really appreciated them coming in on a Sunday. And I know that there's a few of them here in the audience. So I appreciate them coming down and supporting. But there was a lot of really good, I think we had about a three and a half hour meeting talking about this stuff. And so what they recommended, and that's we didn't want to make any policy changes because we had already published the agenda. But there's some things that they brought back that we're going to definitely take a look at. And so the first and foremost is that they wanted to, they were concerned about the public outreach. And so we hadn't done a lot of public outreach. And so the first thing that we did is we tried to get it out and get a social media post out on our social media website about this meeting. I know that we had an article on the Santa Cruz Sentinel this morning. And I also did an on-camera interview with KIO in a couple of days ago. We tried to get as much public outreach as we could. The room was filled up, so I thought we did quite a bit. But that was on another topic. The other thing is that they really wanted us to kind of identify and just more detail what our hot list is and what that looks like. And so it's in the policy itself, it's vague. And so we really want to really hone in on what we're going to put into the system and what qualifies as that. So again, this is not, you know, it's a very powerful tool and we don't want to overuse it and we want to make sure that it's used for the right reasons. And so really diving into, it has to be a significant crime, a major crime or a missing person or something of high value. So really kind of diving into that a little bit more. And then the other couple of comments that they had is just a little bit more robust of an audit system to include more command level oversight. So in the policy right now, we just require an annual audit. And so what we're looking at is doing more of a, as we start with this technology, maybe doing a monthly audit and then reviewing it at six months to see, are we tracking, are we doing it right? And then determining what's the right audit that we need to do. I think a year is not enough. And so making it like as a monthly right now and then also in order to put something on the hot list, that has to do with the oversight, is having a sergeant's approval on that. So an officer just can't put in whatever they want. We're going to have to have a, we want to double check on what those are. So that was the third thing. And then to review the program in six months to determine the effectiveness of the system and evaluate the audit procedure. So just kind of come back. And they've been, like I said, they've been a really, really good working group. So I would be happy to bring it back and incorporate whatever suggestions that they have as well. And so those were the recommendations. So moving forward, what's before you now is a recommended action to authorize a city manager to execute the 24 month master service agreement for the lease of the 10 automatic license plate reader cameras from Flock Group and then mount not to exceed 68,350. And with that, I'm open for any questions that I know, like I said, John's on the phone if you have any technical questions or any questions for him. Thank you, Chief. All right, we'll start with questions. Questions on this end? Member Clark? No? Member Morgan? Yes. Thanks. Thank you for this presentation. So you're saying that an officer could just do, like a search on a type of vehicle, like that one side that brought up the gray SUV or whatever. Is that like any officer at any time can do that or? No, so they have to have a reason. So just like DMV, we can't just randomly run people. So in this, for this system, they actually have to have an actual crime or an active investigation open. And they have to, the first audit, each officer has an individual identifier to log in. And then they have to put in a justification of why they're searching it. So a case number or if it's an investigation, I have to say, you know, armed robbery at Comerica Suspect Vehicle Search and their name. And so they have to put that information in there. They can't just randomly go in the system and just search for anything that would be against our policy. Okay. And then the auditing process, I think, yeah, doing it, at least in the beginning more frequently than a year, but what would that entail? Is that just seeing how much we used it or how helpful it was to neighboring jurisdictions or? A couple of things. So the transparency portal will let the public know who we're sharing information with. So part of that agreement is that, say, Watsonville-Pete is a great example. So if we start our program and we have our cameras, they have to ask for permission and we have to accept it. So it has to be, you have to ask for permission to search other people's information. And then they're still bound by their policies. It's pretty widely used in California. We have pretty strict policies on who we can't give their information out to. I agree with the audit piece of it because it needs to be, we're looking at a monthly and then we would probably do a random selection as just an audit, but then have a sergeant, the sergeants are going to oversee it. So I'd have the administration captain, especially early on, really reviewing, depending on how much we use it, we could review it on a weekly basis, but again, kind of do a random audit just to make sure that we're doing it right. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Mayor Brooke. Thank you. I appreciate you sharing this as a tool to support the team, Chief, and I think this is a great tool to use. I have four questions. So I'm warning my council members who are looking at me daggers. My first question is, you mentioned that we have the cameras at times, or most of the time turned in within city limits, but have the opportunity to turn them out and we live in a right in the middle of county, right? So after also one end and that's county jurisdiction, do we need to talk to them or create an extended policy that says at times we will turn the cameras in your jurisdiction in the unincorporated areas? Do we need to talk to the county? Because they don't have flock yet. They don't have flock. So this would be like phase one. The idea is we want everything coming into the city jurisdiction. If we wanted to expand the program, the next step would be to do cameras inbound and outbound, but that would be to double our camera systems. You can't turn them. We want to keep them primarily focused on everything coming into town. They will be just for the city of Capitola. So you mentioned if we have an investigation, that's kind of when we activate the system. What happens if we've accidentally identified an incorrect vehicle and what's the process look like to say, take that off or not. That's the wrong vehicle. And how fast can you do that? So we can input the information. So in order for us to enter something into the NCIC, like an Amber Alert and those different things, there's several things that through our dispatch center have to be checked to put those in. So those kind of have safeguards in place. But I think what you're referring to, if we had something happen and they're manually entering it, we have the ability to, like I said, with Sergeant Approval, so we want to make sure that we're giving out the most accurate information. And so we have the ability to put that in, but then immediately pull it out or we can put, so as it stands right now, we could put a timeline to reevaluate it in an hour or have it fall off in an hour. So we have to be very cautious with the information that we put out there because we can't be looking for, like a vehicle indefinitely because it becomes stale. And so we have to kind of keep that information fresh. We're doing it now just verbally. And so when we search for a vehicle, our dispatch will just put the information over the system and then we'll write it down. Where this will put the information in the system and the cameras will be kind of doing the looking for us. And then we'll, if there's a hit, if you will, the officer still has to look at it, verify it, and then react to it. So there's that safeguard there. So it's not like there's immediately something has to happen. We still have the person there to evaluate the information that's being given and then react to it. And I will say that that becomes, I think with this system, I think it actually protects us a little bit more because this system is, the computer's going to be looking for, as an example, Honda pilots. A lot of times we get an information, maybe it's a Honda pilot, but we're going to be looking a little bit more broad because we'll be looking for an SUV because we know people don't always get the description right. It sometimes changes. I think with the vehicular manslaughter, I think we had conflicting information. So that's all information that the officers have to evaluate on scene. And then either put it in or take it out, no different than they would if they had to update dispatch or the units over the air would be the same thing. They just had to put it in the system that way. And they can immediately remove it as well. Okay. And the question stems from the NCIS. What was it? NC... The database. The CIC. The database. I guess the question stems from once it leaves here in our database, and it goes to that kind of high level one that it stays there for a while. If it were the wrong information, I just wouldn't want the wrong information to sit in the database. And so it sounds like you have tools in place to ensure that doesn't happen to anyone. You mentioned that our officers have the ability to access this over their work phones. I know that some of our officers or most officers, it makes sense to take their work phones home. And so what are some of the parameters you're setting up for them to not... We have a wonderful police force. Not that anyone would ever do this, but should they think it'd be fun to look something up or activate something? What are the... I mean, this would be absolutely an on-duty thing. They shouldn't be accessing this data off-duty. We would be able to track that. And our audits would absolutely show that. Every officer is issued a department-issued cell phone. I will say that while they do have them at work, a lot of times they do leave them here. That's something you would need to write into your policies just to say there could be an audit and you would ensure that only it was being used during on-duty hours just as a safety net for us. And then what's... And again, I know it's probably in the policy already, but the protocol if it's the wrong person driving what happens though you have a vehicle identified and it's wrong person. So this technology, again, it's just a piece it's not facial recognition. We still have to do all the work that we would have to do to identify the driver. All that still pertains because we know that it could be a falsely-plated... There's a lot of scenarios there. We still have all the safeguards. We still have to establish probable cause, reasonable suspicion all those things that we have to do before we even act on any of this information. So it's not that's not your free path to just go stop them. You still have to look at it make sure verify it with our dispatch and then you can take enforcement action. And I know I said four questions but I have a fifth. Did your chief's counsel when they said with the six month audit, which I think is a great idea, maybe did any of them suggest coming in reporting to counsel on with that audit or the check-in would look like or was that going to stay within chief's counsel? The recommendation was to come back in six months to like review it to see what was going on. I was going to put a little bit more robust audit system in as like I said, like a monthly audit to kind of start the process. And so I planned on reporting back to counsel and even the chief's counsel again because I want it's new technology. So we want to see is this working for us? It's a significant investment for the little bit of money that we do get. And so we just want to make sure it's a good investment for us. We would hear back in six months from you. Happily. Thank you. Those were all my questions. Those were more Peterson questions. Thank you. So I have a couple questions. First is a little bit broad, but I'd like to hear more about how outside organizations and entities can access the data that comes from within Capitola if we were to implement the Flock system. So they have to ask for permission. So they have to reach out to us and seek permission. So we would likely share if we were to start this program we would start collecting data. If Watsonville PD wants to access our data, they have to ask us and it's just a permissions thing. And so they have to ask and we have to accept. So during the trial period, when you were gaining information from other entities locally you submitted request and then they approve them. That's how you got the data. Correct. Okay. I have a question, kind of a follow up question. I think this may be better suited to the Flock representative, but here in the section 5.3 of the contract that was attached to the agenda it says Flock may access use and I'm going to paraphrase this because I don't think it makes sense to read all of it, but Flock may access use or disclose the footage and or third parties if Flock has good faith belief that such access is reasonably necessary to detect, prevent or otherwise address security, privacy, fraud or technical issues or emergency situations which to me sounds that like Flock may use any of the data that we collect locally for just about any purpose. Yeah, the representative, I don't know if he's available to speak on that. Hi, this is John Anderson. First of all members of the council, thank you for allowing me to come speak and answer some questions. I'd be more than happy to take that one. So Flock abides by all state laws and if there was a state law or a subpoena or some sort of legal action that required us to provide data to a law enforcement entity, that would be the type of circumstance in which something that would be applicable. That being said anything outside of that the data is not accessed. The average Flock employee doesn't have any access to any of the data or any of the reads. It would only be a circumstance like I described before. So you mentioned that only law enforcement authorities making an official request, a legal binding request would have access to the data, but this year's statement in the contract says government officials and or third parties. So it's possible to amend the contract to state that you will only disclose information from our local system if required to do so by law. That would be something that we would have to get our city attorney working with the or I'm sorry get your city attorney working with our legal team. But that is certainly a request that we could make to have them change that in the in the terms assuming that it still allows us to do the things that we need to do. Thank you and I have one other question that's probably well suited for you. The 30 days of data retention is that negotiable in the contract as well. So the 30 day retention period I mean we can we can go shorter and that is really easy for us to do we've decided on 30 days is kind of our policy because that's the period that is most effective for most agencies we can go longer if that was something that you wanted to do as well if the council were to approve that there is a cost associated with that because we are obviously storing and holding the data for a longer period of time. I don't know the exact numbers but I can tell you a very high majority of the agencies that we have in California that are on this system are sticking with the 30 day period and not going longer than that although it is a possibility if the council chose to do so. And I was thinking more on the shorter side so when you say the very high majority chose to stick with the 30 day period you're not including or you are including a small majority who chose to go shorter I'm guessing is that correct? Yes that's correct I mean it is possible to go shorter and the chief could probably speak a little bit better to this than I can there are some reasons why for most agencies in most cities 30 days is a good benchmark to have there's typically a delay from a time when a crime is reported to when the investigators are actually investigating that case they don't know exactly what those response times would look like for your city but 30 days typically provides a good balance for that and then also if there's some sort of a serious crime that happens it's not always immediately known what data is going to be the relevant data to be looking at and only after starting the investigation is it typically known for or known what they're going to be looking for and what to specifically search for at a time making 30 days a good benchmark for a lot of cities okay and one last question in the presentation it stated that immigration was specifically not approved for the use of this technology but I just wanted to clarify so like if ICE requested you to get or requested us or you to give the data that would be denied is that correct that's against California state law okay perfect okay we're not even allowed to assist them like in the field through the end of my questions thank you yes of course so what it sounds like in order for anybody to use this you have to have a case number from the agency and then a case number from the requesting agency if an agency wanted access to our data they would actually have to submit a formal request to a supervisor then it gets approved and then we would release that information okay I just have a couple quick questions the transparency portal that you mentioned we have the option to put that on our website was that something that the advisory committee considered as well or is it just something that we have an option to use if we want it's just an option I thought it was a good option for us just to kind of put the information out there and I know that I think it's important too just to put out there who we're sharing the information with and that's it and they and Flock actually provides that information and so I think it would be odd if we were accepting our request from out of state or something like that there would have to be some reason for that yeah I appreciate that I think the transparency portal is a good idea and then I have a question based on council member Peterson if you could clarify you mentioned only releasing information when required by law I think I'm concerned with the idea of if another for example Watsonville was seeking information about someone who had come into our city or out of our city after committing a crime that legally you don't have to cooperate if I'm understanding correctly but as a good neighbor and as seeking to provide mutual aid to our counterparts that we would want to do that so I'm concerned with the idea of saying we're only releasing information when required by law but perhaps we could change that to when deemed appropriate by our chief right so what I'm talking about here is what Flock can do so I'm saying to restrict Flock to give out data only is required by law but not trying to exclude the chief from working with our partners locally at all my concern is that the national Flock system may give out data to third parties or politicians or their government agencies without our approval that's why it would be revised or at least looked into by our lawyers can I ask the chief if he has any thoughts on that as far as the Flock sharing third party information I think that's worth a conversation with our city attorney if we could tighten that up I think that'd be fine then just allowing us the latitude to again be good neighbors and again we want to be good partners but they have to have a valid reason for accessing the data that's our only requirement of course I just want to make sure that we are not restricted from what you need to do and from assisting those within our county and nearby and I would say too we have a 30 day retention 30 days sounds like a long time but when you're putting an investigation together things go pretty fast once it's gone it's gone and so a day on any one of these things if we miss it we miss it so again we can take a look at it after 6 months and again we're always looking at reevaluating our processes and stuff like that thank you any other questions council probably I think I know the answer but just to confirm there's never been a data breach from the flock system is that correct that is correct thank you alright we will bring this now to public comment any members of the public that would like to address the council on this item welcome my name is still James Ewing no disrespect for this report at all the emails did a report similar to this in the middle late 2019 when it was these cameras were put in in the boardwalk area so I mean I wish I had a couple hours to talk about this I don't it's good that I have less than 3 minutes now but as far as the surveillance technology you know it is operating in the infrared otherwise it's operating in a light spectrum that human beings can see 5% of the light spectrum I'd say that it's these cameras for example or about 1% of the surveillance technology that's already installed in this county I know it used to be easier to do a lot more research I asked the officers where the borders of capital were because otherwise I'd be talking more about Soquel Drive where there's 27 intersections that are redundantly hardwired with all kinds of surveillance technology so this is really just kind of a red herring and you guys are kind of talking about circles but nobody's really talking about how the surveillance is really going on this isn't an iPhone but iPhones take infrared picture every 7 seconds so as far as the technology and how it's actually affecting us you know Vladimir Putin really has expressed a lot of sadness for how much the frequency weapons seem to be being used on the US public and you guys are walking around in circles about this what brought me in to speak publicly was why are we allowing military frequency weapons in civilian locations why have I spent the time putting on films on the beach and engaging with law enforcement because next to law enforcement and emergency responders it's only teachers being thrown under the bus by these frequency weapons and I see somebody wearing a earbud it's about the only time I pray so there's a lot of information going on I mean I hung around for over 2 hours to listen to this I would like more public comment and involvement obviously I'm not I don't know what kind of rewards I am for talking about this stuff but within the last week the lockdown happened and I can read there were maybe 27 28 reasons why you could be out in public I suited 5 of those things the extensive infrastructure that exploded the next day everywhere was fascinating and so there's just a lot I mean I think there's good things to this and there's good things and bad things and I'm happy to throw away this phone and never have another one as long as no one else had one thank you thank you hi welcome as I said earlier my name is Cheryl Bann I'm a 40 year resident of Capitola former business owner and happy to live here and I would like to thank the police for their service all these years I've been feeling safe for a long time so I support you Holly but I am not in support of the surveillance system and I'm trying to learn, listen on why so I'm gathering the information I do feel that there needs to be more public input I'm quite confused I have some ideas I'd like to ask more direct questions instead of being limited and put it together so these are some of my thoughts you maybe address some of them they might not make so much sense so there are court cases that have been involved with this ALPR technology our US Constitution the Fourth Amendment protects people from unreasonable searches and scissors according to the US Supreme Court the Fourth Amendment's purpose is to safeguard the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by government officials First Amendment rights to freedoms of association, religion and speech I think are very important here to look at this part we're entering into a time in our lives where this is a very big question on how much we want to allow this type of surveillance for our safety and protection we are giving up other rights and I think this demands more attention by everybody and more awareness there can be unintended consequences to the technology we don't know enough about it personal privacy exposed to unknown third party companies, I really appreciate congressman council member your questions about the third party and what can happen we can be hacked we don't we can be hacked there's the safeguards we put into place for all information also there's a company in Livermore, I'm not sure if it's still going vigilant solutions owned by Motorola they have sold their information I don't know what Flock has in mind but there is that let's see alright we are the data and we're the product and we need to be really careful about it so I appreciate your time and I really do look forward to learning more about this and supporting our city thank you additional public comment on this item hi welcome hi my name is Adrienne West and I'm the daughter of Deppertown who was killed in the hit and run November 18th in the area of Crossroads Loop Bay Avenue I felt called to speak tonight in favor of the Flock cameras or license plate readers my family and I walked several miles up and down so called drive in the days following my mom's murder we looked tirelessly for any and all cameras that might hold footage from that night that had the potential to help find her killer what we found instead according to detectives were limited pieces of footage that were grainy, distorted and terrible places we assumed that would have very clear imaging due to their proximity to the street had cameras for show that didn't even work what I'm saying is God forbid anyone else suffer a tragic loss like I have you'd be grateful that the city of Capitola has Flock cameras to catch such criminals without the determination of detective career and his unrelenting compassion to serve our entire community I'm not certain my mom's killer would have ever been found and it was with the help of Watsonville's Flock cameras that he finally achieved confirmation in his investigation after nearly two of the longest weeks of my life he was then able to locate the devil that's been walking among us and put her behind bars where she belongs I cannot stress enough the importance that the Flock system will have on future investigations as a tool for officers to be able to quickly locate criminals or to follow the direction they went thank you Capitola PD for doing all you can to keep everyone safe thank you additional public comment hi welcome again my name is Linda Smith and I'm speaking as a resident of Capitola but I am also a member of the Missouri Committee and we recently had a very in-depth discussion on the subject that he's just presented to you this topic has been of significant interest to me for several months so I did a deep dive published reports, blog posts pro and con and information on the implementation of BLPR since its beginnings in the UK in the 1970s and its migration to the United States 30 years ago almost 30 years ago I included current legislation and the California audit report that was published in 2020 I reviewed all the information I could find on Flock cameras versus other vendors and they do have some very very special assets that the other vendors don't and they don't sell the data like the other ones do I had a lot of questions when I read the staff report I was concerned that we were asking for authorization to enter into a contract without having more public awareness tonight's public hearing was widely publicized on social media as well as covered in the Sentinel several of us forwarded the Facebook postings and I've spoken to many of our residents who are supportive of the implementation of ALPR in Capitola and don't feel that additional meetings are needed although I do not speak for the commission I believe that I heard a consensus in our group the same I watched videos of presentations by several agencies across California that were implementing ALPR and I saw reference after reference to the successful use of the system in solving crimes apprehending perpetrators just like our own cases that you heard about tonight I'm here tonight to tell you that I believe Sarah and Andy answered all of my questions and addressed all of my concerns as well as those challenged by other members of the committee their implementation is thoughtful and goes beyond the protections provided by legislation already passed in California as well as AB 1463 which is still in process suggestions I read in blog posts were already implemented in the policy that they created Chief Daly and Captain Ryan have done their homework to respect and protect privacy while utilizing advancements in technology to assure the safety of our community I hope that you will support their request for authorization to enter into a two-year lease agreement let's check this out and see how much safer we can be thank you hi welcome it was on our end I'm saddened to hear of any kind of murders of course and I'm very worried about a surveillance state and I listen to a report on the corporate crimes reporter and I think of corporate crimes that kill a lot of people with pesticide poisoning with cell phone radiation, wifi radiation all kinds of toxics and here I just feel like there's already way too much surveillance going on you can't go up to an intersection without having all these cameras on you and I don't know about this flock corporation but I have a book called toxic sludge is good for you lies, damn lies in the public relations industry and there's a quote in there by one of these public relations firm bursts and mars tellers they say the role of our communication is to manage perceptions which motivates behavior to create business results and I feel like this is the presentation today that this is all for our safety go out and buy this product for thousands and thousands of dollars and it seems like the city could be spending money elsewhere I I find that's very very worrisome and often evidence of real crimes is covered up even though there are photographs of it and I just want to give let's see one example here there's a book out a lie too big to fail this is reviewed in my global research writer Edwin Curtin I'll just tell you the title the CIA takeover of America in the 1960s it's a story of our times the killing of the Kennedys and today's new cold war in here it's cited how all these thousands of photographs of the Robert of Kennedys assassination taken by LAPD were destroyed so often there's evidence taken but it's not a lie I'm not for this I think it's a poor use any further public comment on this item saying none we'll bring it back to council for consideration and a vote I'd like to thank the police department and the chief for a great presentation there was a lot of good information being in law enforcement I know this is a proven tool and I'm really looking forward to getting this going here in Capitola regarding the third party as one of our city attorney can put some language in there saying that it can only be shared with the police department and the chief's permission not just flock indiscriminately we're happy to speak with Fox legal council and see if we can negotiate something like that member Morgan yeah I will echo that so I think if we can just be clear on the boundaries of Fox usage but thank you for taking the time and thank you to the chief's advisory council for putting in some extra work as well I'm definitely curious to see what our six month mark looks like thank you do you need us to make an adjustment to how it's presented to ensure that what do you think I'd be interested to hear this city manager's thoughts but my first take is that we will need to discuss this with Fox to see if the changes that are being requested are amenable kind of depends on if the council would like us to bring it back I would think probably yes but I will leave that to you folks I'm going to look at councilmember Peterson on that what were your thoughts go ahead yeah I'd like to see a brought back are you done yeah definitely very interesting technology and a very difficult decision and I just want to say I'm glad we have you on the team leading this and your council has been very helpful I do think that we should have another round of public outreach and see if we can get more weigh-in on this technology because it is definitely a large decision that's going to impact everybody I don't think it should be taken lightly that we're all going to be recorded 30 days or not entering and exiting the city so and since it's going to be brought back or the anyways I think this would be a good opportunity to do a possibly more robust public outreach campaign and see if we can truly pack the house thank you I'll hop back on so at this time I am happy to make a motion with the direction to have our city attorney look at the language as presented by councilmember Peterson I'd like to maintain the 30 days that would just be the only adjustment so that would be my motion that would block just on that particular language and then we can see if it would come back but I'm at 100% fine with the recommended action as stated to move forward with it and I don't see any need for us to go back for community input we have our chief's council we've had enough outreach from what I could see at this time that would be my motion just because I see I hear some can I ask for clarification so is your motion to accept the recommended action but to authorize the city attorney to work with flock on the suggested wording or is your motion to I hear it back I heard Tamara say that she actually needs to come back with it is that can I offer I think you could give some parameters that if the city attorney can negotiate a deal for otherwise you could come back to council I don't have it in front of me but I think that what I heard from councilmember Peterson is that the flocks policy currently reflects that information can be shared with council and with outside third parties as and so I would like our city attorney to ensure that those two things are not in the contract agreement if that is if we can work that out I'm fine with moving forward with the recommended action for the authorization of the contract for the 24 months so yeah I will second that could I request clarification before we move forward I'm making it up on the way so the language as it's written now says that subject to and during the retention period 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 if flock has a good faith belief that such access use preservation disclosure is reasonably necessary to comply with the legal process and it sort of carries on my notes from councilmember Peterson's comment earlier was his concern with the or if flock has a good faith belief that such access so forth and so forth so does the council is the council's direction to completely remove the fact that flock can share with third parties or revise that language to make it more clear and for just clarity of course we'll have to talk to flock's legal council and you know I don't know what their position is on this yet so I can't speak for councilmember Peterson but I do definitely hear his concerns as well as his concerns as well as his concerns as well as the information being given out to third parties by an organization that we don't have any jurisdiction over as well as for any government official here to have access to that information so rhythm removal of government official and third party is I think a starting point and I quite frankly tomorrow have no idea so even clarification on that would be really helpful but bottom line is our chief presenter that this information is with the department they have a process that they can share information and that so I just wanted to be aligned as much as possible with our policies that we have within the city limits is that answer your question maybe it does so is our direction to do this negotiation and then bring it back to council or is it to do this negotiation and if we get this result then we can move forward without bringing it back to council uncomfortable with that okay thank you may I request clarification for the motion so the motion I have right now is to authorize the city manager to execute the agreement once the city attorney confirms with their council correct okay thank you alright I have just a couple comments also thank you for looking into this I think it is important to consider the need for this kind of resource when we're looking to solve crime in our city I do want to clarify sorry now I'm looking for clarification and in removing the idea of sharing information with government officials does that I know in the past law enforcement has shared pictures of vehicles that we're looking for if they've been stolen or involved in a crime would this preclude or prevent you from doing that from sharing that information with us to share on our socials if the idea is that you can't share it with other government officials or does that just prevent us from getting access to the database itself I understand this would be good to give out that information it's our information so we can use it and distribute it as we see fit as long as within our policy okay great yeah I think this is really important and I'm glad that it's coming forward I'll say that on a day-to-day basis there's Caltrans cameras we can look at the freeways at any time and tell us what kind of traffic data we're having we've got our beach cam, our surf cams walk by any Tesla and you're being recorded with a blank on my door a blank camera on my door I used to work for a private investigation firm for four years and let me tell you there's always someone watching so I think for the sake of this being used for public safety and solving crimes it's going to be very beneficial and I appreciate you bringing it forward with that I believe we have a motion and a second all in favor say aye any opposed say no any abstentions okay that motion carries 4-1 with council members Clark Morgan Brooks and Brown voting yes and council member Peterson voting no we are going to move on to item 8 C Park at Brisbane mansion and welcome Jessica Good evening council members the Department of Public Works is proudly bringing this item to you this evening we are very excited to get this long standing project out the door so most of my presentation this evening will be describing the scope of the project I'll try to make it brief next slide so this is not the image that was in your packet there's a different iteration of this project but it was by far the prettiest picture that I had and so this is the one I'm sharing this evening this is the full scope that was imagined of this project so in addition to just general beautification it was also a lot of historical reconstruction of the elements of the property at no point did this project it does not now include the renovation of the building itself next slide please so as I said this project has a really long history definitely predates me here at the city so if you have any burning questions about the long history you can ask the city manager but this most recent iteration of project initiation began in 2014 there was a lot of grant funding for parks about a decade ago and so the city got a project together to be eligible for grant funding to improve the site between 2015 and 16 there were two rounds of pedestrian improvements created on the site then in 2020 there was a pretty large effort to put in a grant that was unfortunately unsuccessful and that point the city took the initiative to go ahead and fund this project out of a general funds another funding that was available from so in July of 2022 we received approval to bid this project the restriction on the property we have to do any major construction between April 15th and October 15th so while we had approval to bid we decided to hold off until it was a little closer to the project to get better pricing unfortunately when we bid this project in January of last year we didn't receive any bids which was very sad and also made us lose our work window for 2023 plus we had a lot going on in 2023 next slide please so as I said there were some challenges to this project site the environmental regulations on it really restrict our construction window we had a lack of any bids in January so the California public contract code allowed us to negotiate with really with anyone so we went back to the contractors we had done site walks with as a pre bid pre soliciting bids and talked to several contractors and landed with Betz Works also known as Earthworks until very recently very well known in the community both of their subs for this project were also long standing contractors that the city works with often and they are also very excited to get going on this project they actually have a big sense of pride to get this one going so we do have some budget constraints that was part of the reason that this project didn't receive any bids because many some of the feedback we got from the contractors was just the items that were in the bid package so our goal in the negotiation of this contract was to really get some of the essential elements done some of the really big pieces that we want to see in the historical preservation and then also just general use of the park and then there really is potential for all of these other items that were listed in the staff report to be kicked to future phases because really they are standalone and can be taken in smaller bites in the future next slide please so our current scope the major pieces of this are the amphitheater which is a brand new part of the park to do the handrails and really restore the grand stairway and the mansion and then some more minor elements definitely the modifications of the garden wall on Warf Road will be something really significant as it's directly across from the library and our recent road improvements so really a significant difference into the visual of this intersection next slide please so a few pictures these are pictures that some of you may have seen before this is my favorite drawing of this picture because Fred from Ski Bidu isn't it but this is the amphitheater so on the lower left is where next to the mansion is where this amphitheater will be used definitely have talks you could do plays it's a really great community space also just passively next slide please this would be the restoration of the grand staircase so you see it in its current condition now its previous condition with the nuns on the site in the past and then the drawing here to restore the stairway and then also add railings to bring it to kind of current stairway standards next slide then there is fencing lighting and a wall treatment so the wall I should have included an image of the current wall but it would be cutting basically that current wall in half for most of it and providing iron fencing there against Warf Road and then of course including lighting and then internal fencing because there are significant grades on the site and we don't want anybody falling over the edge next slide please so these are the items that are excluded some of them are minor such as some plantings there will definitely be plantings on the site but just not all the ones that have been presented in the past and some other ceramic urns and other visual aesthetic items still very lovely project without them some of the major items that are excluded in this time are just some of the higher priced items notably the Batchiwell Court was about approximately $50,000 the game tables with benches, the game tables themselves are not that expensive but required quite a bit of site work and it's not that expensive and the following slides I have a little more detail next slide of what's being omitted from this project so these would be the game tables and benches there closest to the Ruskin Mansion building next slide and here you can see three of the elements that have been excluded so number 15 is the Arbor way Batchiwell Court there's number 17 on that image and then the restoration there is one there now but that was a restoration piece I want to say it was about $20,000 that we didn't think that was essential to the project at this time next slide fountain emitters which I didn't know what they were until I realized they were in this bid so I thought maybe some other people need clarification as well there's that historical reflecting pool that will be restored the artwork that you may recall from some of the other iterations of this project included at this time and the emitters are where the water comes out so there's one in the front and one in the back and so they were supposed to get fancy covers and they are not in the scope at this time next slide and then the last piece is $100,000 worth of pavers which would be very lovely but also are $100,000 so those are the areas in purple they'll be lovely colored concrete it'll be a very nice thing we can do and if we would like to come back later with the pavers that is still very much an option next slide so the fiscal impact of this there's a total project budget of 940 or total contract budget of $949,000 at the project contract we are presenting this evening there's available funding of about $980,000 which we suggest we keep for contingency because once you start digging up things especially old things you never know what you're going to find that funding includes a Proposition 68 grant that has been lingering for quite a while it is very much something we have to spend on this project at this point from the state of California the scope that I have this evening is within this budget again ability to complete all of these other elements that are admitted in future phases so again our work window is April 15th to October 15th we can do some work outside of that window but most of the major construction work the grading and those type of things need to be completed during this window we anticipate starting on the week of April 22nd and being complete in October so we can have a Halloween party in the park next slide so so the recommendation is here on the slide and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have thank you any questions Council Member Clark I was back at one of those meetings years ago and they talked about the lighting for safety reasons and I couldn't tell on the presentation if all those lighting were still going to be included for crossing the all the way through Perry Park to the Notville Park ooh that's a good question so the lighting that was on that image is the lighting included in the park that is the scope of this project so if it was not Julia I'm not sure if you're able to pull it up quickly but those are all internal they're not pathway lighting and lastly there's not a restroom available at the mansion is there any way we can ever partner back with the county and get the bathrooms opened just on the other side of Perry Park because they've been closed for a while now since there's no restrooms you can always go across to the library but they're not always open and once upon a time bathrooms used to be open in the apartment so to my knowledge that facility is still there I don't know the history of why they're closed we want to dig into it so I know why they closed it but I was like it's going to be a park that's going to be used a heck of a lot more there's going to be better lighting it won't turn into a place where you know that it's a nuisance yeah so those restrooms were closed about a decade ago if I remember correctly and it was because actually they couldn't comply with ADA and they're on the county's property so there was ADA liability for both the county sanitation district and the city because we maintained them and due to the width and size and the fact that there was like a concrete building there was no easy way to make them ADA accessible one question I know you went over so the wall we're actually going to knock part of it down like the road facing part okay cool thank you yeah just for clarification for all of our audience members here today to be clear that the mansion in and of itself is not going to be accessible this is just simply the outside area okay what will that look like for the mansion is it going to be just fenced is it what can visitors expect so the entrances are currently sealed to my knowledge they're not the prettiest seals are more right for safety because no one is supposed to be in that site at all right now I know in the past there have been talks about putting murals on the faces of those walls and those again are somet