Pine Hollow Road| Complete Streets Feasibility Study
Legend:
New Sidewalks
• Close existing sidewalk gaps
• Provide sidewalk buffers from
r
oadway where feasible
• ADA Upgrades
Pedestrian Infrastructure Improvements (Sidewalks)
Source: Caltrans
15
Pine Hollow Road| Complete Streets Feasibility Study
Bike Infrastructure Improvements
Legend:
2-way Cycle Track (Class IV)
1-way Cycle Track (Class IV)
Bike Route with Sharrows (Class III)
Potential for offstreet, multiuse path
16 • School and trailhead connections
• Two-way and one-way cycle track
• Bike crossings at intersections
Pine Hollow Road| Complete Streets Feasibility Study
Cycle Track Configuration
Indiana Dr to Atchison Stage
Rd: One-way Cycle Track
Option A in Fall 2021 Outreach
Ygnacio Valley Rd to
Pennsylvania Blvd: Two-Way
Cycle Track
Option B in Fall 2021 Outreach
17 Two-way + one-way cycle
tracks extend between
Pennsylvania Blvd and Indiana
Dr to provide direct school
connections
Pine Hollow Road| Complete Streets Feasibility Study
Buses, Trucks, and Traffic Calming
Source: NACTO
• Bulb outs and raised medians
• Lane conversion
• Speed feedback signs
• Consider speed limit reduction
• Truck-s pecific signage
Legend:
Lane Conversion Area
Medians, Bulbouts, Speed
Feedback Signs
18
Pine Hollow Road| Complete Streets Feasibility Study
19 Pine Hollow Rd (Between Pennsylvania Blvd and Indiana Dr) Looking west
Pine Hollow Road| Complete Streets Feasibility Study
20 Pine Hollow Rd (Between Pennsylvania Blvd and Indiana Dr) Looking west
Pine Hollow Road| Complete Streets Feasibility Study
Action, Next Steps and Q&A
Pine Hollow Road| Complete Streets Feasibility Study
Action Requested
• Requesting the Council to Approve
r
ecommended concepts from Complete
Streets Feasibility Study on Pine Hollow
Road/Alberta Way (from Clayton Valley
Charter High School to Mount Diablo
Elementary School)
22
Pine Hollow Road| Complete Streets Feasibility Study
Next Steps
• City of Clayton to accept Feasibility Study in
S
eptember
• Pursue grant funding
Cycle 6 ATP Application Submitted - $10 Million
• Advance design
23
Pine Hollow Road| Complete Streets Feasibility Study
Thank You!
Questions?
Staff Report
Date: August 23, 2022
To: City Council
From: Valerie J. Barone, City Manager
Prepared by: Greg Taylor, Director of Information Technology [email protected]
(925) 671-3189
Subject: Considering approval of a 24-month Services Agreement with Flock Safety for the lease and installation of approximately 65 Flock License Plate Reader cameras and associated software services with the option to renew for one additional 24-month term in a total amount not to exceed $789,187.50 over four years, including a 15% contingency, and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. (General Fund)
CEQA: Not a project/exempt pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21065, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c),
15061(b)(3), and/or 15378.
Report in Brief
On April 2nd, 2022 City Council identified License Plate Reader Camera Deployment as a “Tier 2” priority during their Council Priority Setting Workshop for Fiscal Year 2022-23.
After conducting extensive research, City Staff determined Flock Safety’s Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System as the optimal choice for a citywide fixed Automated License Plate Reader Camera System.
Flock Safety’s ALPR system provides patented proprietary machine vision technology to analyze vehicle license plates, state affiliation, and vehicle attributes such as color, type, make and objects (roof rack, bumper stickers, etc.) based on image analytics, not car registration data. Their trademarked Vehicle Fingerprint technology allows for vehicle identification despite partial, missing, temporary or covered plates, and cameras can be installed almost anywhere by leveraging solar batteries for power and cellular (LTE) for data communications.
7.d7.d7.d
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 7.d
August 23, 2022
The City has identified 65 camera locations within the City of Concord for Flock camera deployments which will create a citywide ALPR system and add significant investigative options to help solve, as well as deter, crime throughout Concord. Flock has been shown to connect serial criminal activities and identity vehicles of interest related to missing persons, theft and serious offenses.
The agreement with Flock Safety is a lease/subscription model based on a 24-month renewal cycle which includes the cameras, maintenance, video hosting, cellular service and software updates. The initial 24-month lease and software subscription for 65 cameras with implementation professional services, is $403,937.50, including a 15% contingency.
The City also seeks the option to renew for one additional 24-month term which would total an additional $385,250, including a 15% contingency. The total not to exceed cost for 4 years, including the option to renew after the first 24-month cycle and 15% contingency, is $789,187.50 for 65 Flock cameras, and all funds were identified and approved by City Council on June 28th, 2022 in CIP 2641: License Plate Reader Camera System and Database Integrator.
The above totals an amount not to exceed of $789,187.50, including a 15% contingency.
Recommended Action
Authorize the City Manager to approve a 24-month Services Agreement with Flock Safety for the lease and installation of approximately 65 Flock License Plate Reader cameras and associated software services with the option to renew for one additional 24-month term, in a total amount not to exceed $789,187.50 for four years, including a 15% contingency; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
Background
On April 2nd, 2022 City Council identified License Plate Reader Camera Deployment as a “Tier 2” priority during their Council Priority Setting Workshop for this fiscal year. After conducting extensive research on fixed ALPR options, Staff determined that only Flock Safety’s Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) System with its proprietary software, cloud network and specialized interfaces would meet the City’s Public Safety investigative needs.
The Concord Police Department has a history of utilizing ALPR technology dating back to 2008, and currently has systems mounted to five patrol vehicles. Even in this limited deployment model, ALPR technology proves useful in identifying stolen vehicles while providing investigative data to solve crimes. The implementation of a citywide network of stationary ALPR cameras from Flock Safety is expected to vastly improve the Police
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 7.d
August 23, 2022
Department’s ability to identify vehicles of interest related to missing or endangered persons, or associate with serious crimes under active investigation.
The City has identified 65 locations for a Flock Safety ALPR citywide camera system.
Using their patented proprietary machine vision technology to analyze vehicle license plates, state affiliation, and vehicle attributes such as color, type, make and objects (roof rack, bumper stickers, etc.) based on image analytics and not car registration data, the City’s Police Department will have a significant investigative option to locate missing persons and solve crimes. Flock’s trademarked Vehicle Fingerprint technology allows for vehicle identification despite partial, missing, temporary or covered plates, and cameras can be installed almost anywhere by leveraging solar batteries for power and cellular (LTE) for data communications.
Flock Safety also serves HOAs, neighborhoods, and businesses in addition to other law enforcement agencies with camera systems throughout Contra Costa County and California as a whole. Whereas these systems can share data, the City of Concord would have sole control and discretion with what data is shared by the City’s ALPR system. The data contained in the proposed ALPR system would be controlled by the City of Concord and no data would be released without the City’s permission.
The agreement with Flock Safety is a lease/subscription model based on a 24-month renewal cycle which includes the cameras, maintenance, video hosting, cellular service and software updates. The price per camera is $2,500 per year and for 65 cameras that totals $162,500 per year. The City seeks to also purchase a software upgrade for $5,000 per year that will allow advanced search options that includes Convoy Analysis, Multi Geo Search, Specialized Visual Search and Cradlepoint Integration. Professional services for initial implementation is $250 per camera and for 65 cameras totals a onetime cost of $16,250.
The initial 24-month lease/subscription, including implementation of professional services, amounts to $183,750.00 for the first year and $167,500.00 for the second year for a total of $351,250 for 65 cameras. When adding in a 15% contingency the total not to exceed cost for the initial 24-month term is $403,937.50.
The City also seeks the option to renew for one additional 24-month term which would total an additional $385,250, including a 15% contingency. This amount is slightly less than the first term since there would not be any need for implementation services. The total not to exceed cost for 4 years, including the option to renew after the first 24-month term and 15% contingency, is $789,187.50 for 65 Flock cameras, and all funds were identified and approved by City Council on June 28th, 2022 in CIP 2641: License Plate Reader Camera System and Database Integrator.
City Council Agenda Report
Agenda Item No. 7.d
August 23, 2022
24-month Lease/Subscription Term
with Optional Renewal
24-month Term Optional Renewal
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26
65 Flock Falcon Cameras $ 162,500.00 $ 162,500.00 $ 162,500.00 $ 162,500.00 Advanced Search Software $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 Implementation Services $ 16,250.00 $ $ $ Yearly Total = $ 183,750.00 $ 167,500.00 $ 167,500.00 $ 167,500.00 Initial 24-month term is $351,250.00 and with a 15% contingency totals $403,937.50 OPTIONAL 24-month renewal is $335,000.00 and with a 15% contingency totals $385,250.00 TOTAL 4-Year Cost with Contingency: $789,187.50
Procurement Process
Pursuant to Municipal Code-Title 3 Revenue and Finance-Chapter 3.10 Purchasing, bidding regulations may be waived when there is only one verified vendor for the product or service. Flock Safety’s ALPR system is the only ALPR system that provides patented proprietary machine vision technology to analyze vehicle license plates, state affiliation, and vehicle attributes such as color, type, make and objects (roof rack, bumper stickers, etc.) based on image analytics and not car registration data. Their trademarked Vehicle Fingerprint technology allows for vehicle identification despite partial, missing, temporary or covered plates. Based on research by a staff selection team this specialized proprietary technology is optimal and best meets the needs of the City.
Financial Impact
There is no additional fiscal impact associated with this action as all necessary funding has been previously budgeted and approved in CIP project #2641, License Plate Reader Camera System and Database Integrator.
Public Contact
The City Council Agenda was posted.
Flock Automated License
Plate Reader (ALPR) Cameras
PROV . LT. KEVIN HALM, CONCORD POLICE DEPARTMENT
AUGUST 23, 2022
1
Overview
•Flock ALPR Cameras
•How Does the Technology Work?
•Solving and Preventing Crime
•Contract Approval with Flock Safety
2
How Does the Technology Work
3 What you get with Flock:
objective,real-time, vehicle data
● Vehicle F ingerprint ™ = license plate plus
● Indiscriminateevidence from fixed
locations
● No people, no facial recognition, no traffic
enforcement
Plate
TX LGS2639
Make
Toyota
Color
Gray
Last Visit
3:15 PM EDT
Seen
3 OF 30 DAYS
How Does the Technology Work
4 What is this tech? What ISN’T this tech?
• License p late recognition
• Gathers objective evidence and
facts about vehicles, not peopl e
• Alerts police of wanted vehicles
• Used to solve crime
• Adheres to all state laws
• Not facial recognition
• Not tied to PII ( Personal Identifiable
Information)
• Not used for traffic enforcement
• No video, still photograph only of
t
he license plate and part of the
vehicle.
Flock ALPR Cameras
• Allows f or efficient use of limited personnel (Service Multiplier) • Provides c ritical data to locate missing persons and solve crimes 5
How Does this Impact Crime
6 • Proactive: Real-time alerts when stolen or wanted vehicles drive through Concord
• Investigative:Provides significant options to identify vehicles related to missing or endangered persons or help solve serious crimes
• Community Component: Flock Safety also helps HOAs,
businesses and other non-government organizations to partner with Law Enforcement
Flock Data Management
7 • Flock license plate data is owned by the City of Concord and will never be shared without the City’s permission
• 30 day retention of Flock data unless footage is tied to a Police investigation
Initial Concord Locations
8
EXAMPLES
- Stolen Car with Child Inside
- Organized Retail Th eft
9
Recommended Action
10 • Approve a 24-month Services Agreement with Flock
Safety for the lease and installation of Flock ALPR cameras with the option to renew for one additional 24-month
term, in a total amount not to exceed $789,187.50; and
authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
Questions?
11
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 3:28 PM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>
Subject: 8/23/22 meeting: Item 7D Lease & Installation of License Plate Readers
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers:
Concord City Council should not approve the lease or installation of ALPR cameras (automated license plate recognition) without first approving a written policy for their use during a public hearing and providing justification for and approving the placement of each camera also during a public hearing.
I personally do not support the installation of any public surveillance cameras by government entities because they erode our constitutional right to privacy. I understand that many people believe these cameras will enhance public safety and that public safety is a top priority.
However, merely referencing public safety does not allow our government to override the individua l right to privacy provided in the State Constitution. Even the State has recognized this (see for example California Civil Code §§ 1798.90.5-1798.90.55, 1798.29, 1798.82 which attempt to limit how public agencies can use ALPR data).
I also understand that, because this is an election year, councilmembers running to retain their council seats will want to use approval of these cameras as campaign talking points. This means the council is likely to want to approve the cameras. Therefore, the council needs to establish a written policy for use of these surveillance cameras that balances public safety with the right to privacy.
Before any cameras are purchased or installed, the public and all public agencies need to be perfectly clear on the Council’s intended policy on use of the cameras. Any agencies authorized to use the camera data should be required to appear before the council at a public hearing to request changes to the written policy. These cameras will be collecting data on hundreds of people, the majority of whom will not have committed a crime, but all of whom have a right to privacy.
Following are examples of what a written policy for use needs to address.
Benched Correspondence
Agenda Item No. 7.d
August 23, 2022
Posted August 24, 2022 –
Received after 3 p.m. on August
23, 2022
What data will be collected and who will have access to the data? Flock Safety ALPR cameras not only track license plates but also track the number of times each car travels through an area.
A written policy on what data will be collected, how long it will be kept, and which agencies can access it needs to be voted on by the council. Will city employees have access? Will the officers of Homeowners Associations have access? Flock Safety has agreements with nationwide agencies. Will the company be allowed to share data outside the City of Concord? Will they share it with the FBI or ICE or other agencies that are not under the control of the council? It must in a written policy if the data will be used in accordance with the Civil Code referenced above. How long will the data be saved and for what specific purpose? Will the City of Concord or the Concord Police Dept. release camera data in response to criminal, family dispute, or civil subpoenas?
The idea that if you don’t do anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about is not accurate and it does not address the right to privacy. We need to know the council’s specific intentions on data use. Do you intend to allow HOAs to track residents’ travel patterns? Do you intend for Concord PD to collect information on when people visit health centers, religious buildings, or gun shops? Will agencies be allowed to consider everyone who happened to drive near by a crime a suspect? Will the data be used to limit movement or intimidate political adversaries?
Council needs to justify and approve the location for placement of the cameras. The camera data is generally used for crime investigation rather than crime prevention. The public should be able to know the cameras will serve a specified purpose in the location and not be a fishing expedition that chills public life.
I urge the Council not to approve the ALPR system.
If the Council intends to approve such a system, then the public should not have to leave the right to privacy up to the unelected City Manager, Concord PD, and private company Flock Safety. We should not have to assume what public agencies will use the data for. If these cameras are to be placed in the name of public safety, the council must oversee at public hearings the balancing of the right to privacy granted by the State Constitution. Members of the public must be able to access a written policy to understand their rights under surveillance. Co uncil needs to table this item until it can be placed on an agenda with an accompanying written policy for consdieration.
Thank you,
Hope Johnson
Concord Resident
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 12:32 AM
To: City Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 8/23/22 meeting: Item 7D Lease & Installation of License Plate Readers Dear City Councilmembers:
Your discussion at the end of the license plate camera item was disingenuous. Ring cameras or other private cameras are not the same as Flock - they do not create a database of aggregated data on every car that drives by. Council may have have constituents that want these cameras but that does not mean the Concord Police Department should have free reign to set city policy for the city's intended use of the cameras. I am sure many constituents woul be interested to know how their own data is used. HOAs should also be aware, through written policy from the Council, of the expectation of how the data is used or guidelines of how to set policy for themselves. Are you going to allow the HOA to set up its private Flock camera to film down Concord Boulevard? Can an individual set one up on a street where city staff lives? A written policy does not prevent you from approving and using the cameras. It is oversight to protect the right to privacy, a right outlined specifically in the State Constitution and it's code despite Councilmember Hoffmeister's stated disdain for it. You have basically allowed unelected law enforcement control over data from people who have not violated any laws with absolutely no written input from the elected Council.
Council recently decided to set policy for who gets an "official" city flag. We have a written city policy for use of the city flag but no written city policy of the expectation of how mass data collected on your constituents is used by law enforcement? This is the tail wagging the dog - the city should have a written policy on its expectations for use of the data and with whom the police can share data from individuals not suspected of a crime. Councilmember Obringer was recently concerned about how her data would be used when a police drone filmed her at a public protest or march. This is no different. Council needs its own written policy for the use of the cameras, which is not something that would prevent the city or the police from using the cameras.
Hope Johnson
From: Hope Johnson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2022 8:39 AM
To: Aliano, Dominic <[email protected]>; Hoffmeister, Laura <[email protected]>; Birsan, Edi <[email protected]>; Obringer, Carlyn <[email protected]>; McGallian, Tim <[email protected]> Cc: Barone, Valerie <[email protected]>; Brown, Susanne <[email protected]>; City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Flock Safety misrepresents subpoena responses
Dear Councilmembers:
Please be advised that Flock Safety misrepresented its policy on responding to third party subpoenas at last night's meeting. The Flock Safety representative stated Flock has found it is not subject to disclosing data collected by its cameras through subpoena. However, Flock Safety's own terms of service reserve the right to not only respond to subpoenas by disclosing data collected from cameras but to store data for longer than the stated 30 days if the company believes the data may become subject to disclosure. This is why Concord needs a written policy on how it intends to manage data aggregated from the public without cause for suspicion, an issue regularly addressed with respect to private entities. It is not true that making the public safe requires us to give up our constitutional right to privacy but it is true that Council is refusing to take steps to balance these issues.
From the Flock Safety Terms and Conditions
1.14 “Footage”means still images, video, audio and other data captured by the Flock Hardware or Customer Hardware in the course of and provided via the Services.
4.1 Confidentiality. .........For clarity, Flock may access, use, preserve and/or disclose the Footage to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or third parties, if legally required to do so or if Flock has a good faith belief that such access, use, preservation or disclosure is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with a legal process or request; (b) enforce this Agreement, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Flock, its users, a third Party, or the public as required or permitted by law, including respond to an emergency situation. Flock may store deleted Footage in order to comply with certain legal obligations, but such retained Footage will not be retrievable without a valid court order.
Hope Johnson