And welcome to the special public safety committee meeting of November 12th, 2025.

Our committee liaison, Sarah Jordan will provide information and instruction for the public on how to participate in today's meeting.

Thank you, Chair.

While members of the public are able to attend the meeting in person.

This meeting is being televised and live streamed on the city's website, and the council administration will continue to make arrangements for the public to comment using the Zoom webinar platform.

Members of the public who wish to provide testimony via a call-in or an internet-based service option must enter the virtual speaking queue within five minutes after the conclusion of in-person public testimony or before the virtual speaking queue is exhausted, whichever occurs first.

This will allow for better meeting management between the two platforms and ensure the committee is able to manage and conduct city business.

We appreciate the public's cooperation.

All right.

Sarah, please call the roll.

Vice Chair Campio?

Here.

Committee member Campbell.

Here.

Committee member Whitburn.

Here.

Chair Von Wilpert.

Also attending the meeting today is Daniel Orloff from the Office of the City Attorney.

Baku Patel from the office of the IBA and Coda Seiser from the Office of the Mayor.

If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of the committee room, excuse me, at the entrance of chambers, and place it in the box indicated at the table at the front of the room.

Please do so in a timely manner to ensure proper meeting management.

In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins, and members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage.

This information is also available on the agenda and it will appear on the screen during the public comment period for each agenda item.

Please note that if you're watching via City TV 24 or online, there may be a delay, and please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to speak.

If you wish to speak to a particular item, please wait for that item to be called and then raise your hand to speak by tapping the raise your hand icon, or if you're a call and participant by pressing star nine on your phone.

If you raise your hand during a non-comment period, your hand will be lowered.

Chair.

Hearing none, we will begin with our consent agenda, which is item one.

Um now we won't proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for the consent agenda is now open, and the consent agenda includes item number one, which is the approval of the committee minutes from October 29th, 2025.

Good afternoon, members.

Um thank you for the chance to speak to the minutes.

I noticed that Blair Beekman made reference to automatic automated license plate readers as part of his uh public comments last time.

And I was actually um subjected to that technology in my private vehicle, which has a license plate, which I didn't know.

That's actually on the agenda today.

If the automated license is on the minutes, I'm referring to the minutes, and there were comments in the minutes about automated license plate readers.

Correct, but we're uh if you comment on that, everyone's gonna want to comment on automatically and then we have that on our agenda today.

So only if they are referring to the minutes, and I think we have the right to refer to the minutes.

And Ms.

Wilbur, if you are intending to become a state legislative officer, please be familiar with the Brown Act.

I have a right to speak on the agenda item on the minutes, and the minutes included references to automated license plates readers.

That means they are twice on the agenda, and I may speak twice on automated license plate readers.

Uh please proceed.

Thank you.

I have a state legislator retired license plate that identifies me by my former district, and uh I was followed by police officers who were not trained to understand what those numbers and digits mean.

In the course of trying to explain it to them when I saw them following me, I was told that this was an automated process where they track license plates randomly, and they were not familiar with my plate.

They had entered it into the system and they didn't come up as a legitimate plate.

And then two more cruisers, police cruisers came to my home to figure out what was wrong.

This is the failure of automated technology, and police department needs to do better.

Thank you.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

That concludes testimony here in chambers.

And seeing no hands go up in the virtual queue to speak to item one.

This concludes testimony for the consent agenda.

Thank you.

Um, now we will take any questions or comments on the content agenda or motion to approve.

I'll move approval of consent agenda.

Fantastic.

I will second.

Uh, please take the vote.

And the consent agenda passes unanimously 4-0.

All right, thank you very much.

We'll now turn to agenda item number two.

Uh, Sarah, please introduce item two.

Thank you, Chair.

Discussion item number two is amendments to council policy 500-03 related to the towing program.

And if you're watching on City TV or the live stream online and you'd like to dial in to speak, please call 1669-2545252.

Inputting webinar ID 161-217-1797 pound.

Chair.

Thank you very much.

Um, please settle in.

Um, I do believe that Council Member Whitworth liked to make some comments uh introducing the item.

Uh, please proceed.

Thank you very much, Chair von Wilbert.

I'd like to begin with a story.

Several years ago, I was chatting with a young man that I knew from the community.

I knew he had been working his way through college.

He worked during the day and he took college classes in the evening.

He was a first-generation college student.

He was proud of that, and he was working really hard on it.

I asked him how things were going.

He told me he had had to drop out of college because he had lost his car and he couldn't get to his classes.

I asked him how he lost his car.

He said his registration was overdue, and they took it.

I asked him who they was, who took his car.

He said the city.

The city had literally taken his car just because his registration was overdue.

I asked him where his car was now.

He said they sold it.

He didn't have the money to get it out of the impound, so they sold it.

Here is a first generation college student, somebody that were all trying to help, dropping out of school because the city took his car and sold it because the registration was overdue.

You have got to be kidding me.

That really bothered me.

I mentioned it several days later to somebody else.

And you know what he said?

He said it happened to him too.

His registration was overdue, and the city took his car and sold it.

And I thought to myself, how many people is this happening to?

So I started bringing it up in conversation quite a bit.

And again and again.

People told me the same thing had happened to them or to a family member or somebody else that they knew.

And then I came to realize why I hadn't known about this.

And why nothing had been done about it?

People don't talk about it.

They're embarrassed.

They had their car taken from them because they were struggling financially.

And they feel a sense of shame about that.

So they don't talk about it.

Most of them wouldn't know what to do about it anyway.

And so it continues.

This will keep happening to low-income San Diegans unless we do something about it.

It is up to us to fix this injustice.

And we can.

When I was elected to the city council, I was appointed to the audit committee.

I requested that we do an audit to get information on how often the city does this.

Takes somebody's car and sells it because the registration is overdue.

The result shocks the conscience.

Between 2017 and 2022, the city took away the vehicles of 25,000 people because the registrations had been expired for six or more months.

Twenty-five thousand people.

12,000 of those vehicles were sold off to the highest bidder because the owner did not have the money to get it out of the impound.

12,000 people lost their cars forever because the registration was overdue.

It is so pervasive and so damaging to low-income people that there is a name for it.

It is called a disproportionate impact tow, sometimes called a poverty tow because it disproportionately impacts the poor.

It is a textbook case of a structural inequity, an institutional practice that perpetuates poverty.

It is the precisely the kind of thing that we are here to fix.

The audit committee heard the report and voted unanimously to direct my office to bring policy changes to the City Council to address the impacts of the city's towing program.

We then heard the item at City Council, and City Council also requested that by office bring forward an amendment to the towing policy, and that is the amendment that I am bringing forward today.

The amendment is simple.

It says that instead of taking people's cars away because their registration expired, we should issue them a citation instead.

That's it.

Here's what the amendment does not do.

It does not say that we should stop enforcing when somebody's registration expires.

We should enforce the law, but we should enforce it with a citation, not by taking their car.

Also, this amendment only applies to overdue registrations.

This amendment is very narrow.

This does not apply to any other parking-related ordinance on the books.

Whether you support or oppose the following ordinances, this amendment does not affect them.

It does not affect the 72-hour parking ordinance.

It does not affect the abandoned vehicle ordinance.

It does not affect the vehicle habitation ordinance.

It does not affect the oversized vehicle ordinance.

This is narrowly written to apply only to overdue registrations, which we will continue to enforce, but with citations, not by taking and selling the cars of college students and low-income residents.

For more details, I'll turn it over to Bridget Naso, Director of Legislative and External Affairs in my office.

Bridget.

Thank you, Councilmember, and thank you, committee members.

Good afternoon.

We'll need approximately seven minutes for the presentation.

The item today proposes amendments to City Council Policy 500-3, as you've heard, the City's towing program to reduce disproportionate economic harm to residents brought to light during the 2022 performance audit of the city's towing program.

The proposed action is to approve a resolution adopting proposed amendments to Council Policy 500-3 regarding police initiated towing.

To reduce disproportionate impact towes, the amendments would state that it is a policy position of the City Council that the city issue citations for vehicles with registrations that have been expired for more than six months instead of towing vehicles.

It would request that SDPD report on the performance of the towing program to the public safety committee or successor committee at least once every three years.

And in addition to those amendments, one and two, the city will make a commitment to report on the impacts of the amendments before the end of FY 2020 2027.

To provide some background, the San Diego Police Department towing program is managed by a specialized tow administration unit, which enforces policies, procedures, reporting requirements pertaining to towing, impound storage, release, disposal billing, and other related matters for city initiated tows.

Back in November of 2022, the Office of the San Diego City Auditor released the performance audit of the city's towing program.

That audit looked at the City of San Diego's towing program data from fiscal year 2017 to 2022.

And the auditor found that some types of tows that resulted in higher towing and impound fees were more likely to result in people losing their vehicles in lien sales.

The auditor labeled these types of tows as disproportionate impact tows.

The data showed an expired registration over six months was a top reason vehicles were towed from a location, and that tow resulted in a lien sale.

The audit also showed these types of tows have disproportionate impacts on vulnerable residents and have a significant quality of life implication for some.

The auditor added this can result in unrecovered costs for the city, the impound provider, and potentially severe economic impacts on some vehicle owners.

For some people, the towing of their vehicle could result in the loss of employment, medical benefits, child care, even housing, severe and even devastating impacts.

Since that time, the San Diego Police Department has collected more data that was presented to the November 2024 Public Safety Committee meeting, and it showed from January 1st through October 16th of 2024, 5,423 vehicles were towed for a registration over six months that was expired.

And of that, 1,037 vehicles were sold.

Once again, a top reason for towing and lien sales was an expired registration over six months.

And towing for registration expired over six months, according to that November 2024 report was also the top reason for a tow in lean sole in 2023 or lien sale.

That report also showed the impacts of towing on residents citywide.

You can see broke down by district here on the screen.

In total, 19,762 vehicles were towed.

The City of San Diego from January 1st through October 16th of 2024.

Therefore, the action we're asking today is that the committee approve a resolution adopting the proposed amendments to council policy for 500-3 regarding city police initiating towing.

Once again, to reduce the disproportionate impact tows, the amendments would state it's the policy position of the city council that the city issue citations for vehicles with registrations that have been expired for more than six months instead of towing vehicles.

It would request that the San Diego Police Department report on the performance of the towing program to the public safety committee or successor committee at least once every three years, and that report shall include at minimum the total number of tows and vehicles sold via lien sales broken down by tow reason.

In addition, SDPD should consider providing an update to the public safety committee or successor committee during the initial year of a new towing contract.

Now, in addition to the above two amendments, the city will also make a commitment to report on the impacts of the amendments.

This would happen before the end of FY 2027 2027 to the public safety committee or successor committee, and it would receive a report from the IBA on the impacts of the amendments to Council Policy 500-3 during the period of the calendar year beginning January 1, 2026 through December 31st of 2026.

And that concludes our presentation.

We're available for any questions.

Chair von Wilbert.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

And uh Sarah, please take any public comment.

Oh, oh, I'm so sorry.

No, I I mess up.

Um Baku from the IBA's office did ask to make a presentation after, and I apologize forgot, so please proceed.

Thank you, Chair.

I just had some brief comments from a fiscal impact perspective of the proposed policy change, uh, which is actually unfortunately uh somewhat difficult to estimate.

As was noted in staff in the staff's report based on 2024 activity, the revenue loss specifically from tows due to expired registrations over six months would amount to 1.4 million dollars.

With that said, and the reason why the fiscal impact is difficult to estimate is that this potential revenue loss could be mitigated if vehicles that otherwise would have been towed for expired registrations over six months are nonetheless towed for an alternative violation such as a 72-hour parking violation.

So, for example, if a majority of these vehicles do in fact get towed for other violations, the fiscal impact could be minimal.

Conversely, if most of these tows are successfully avoided, the fiscal impact would be more significant.

It's also worth noting that increased parking citation fine revenue may be realized, which would further mitigate potential impacts.

If this proposal is approved by the council and implemented going forward, we're happy to conduct the impact analysis as was discussed in staff's presentation.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Um now please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received 11 slips here in chambers, so we will begin testimony with Mohammed Amar.

If you can please come up to the front at the lectern you will be followed by Janika Faulkner, Chris Kennison, and Jesse Schmidt.

If those individuals can please come to the reserve seats at the front of the room, and we will begin with Mohammed.

And each speaker will have one and a half minutes.

I'm here today on behalf of Bana and also for Coalition for Equitable Development in support of amending the council policy relating to the towing program.

Uh we strongly support the city efforts to end towing for expiry restrictions.

However, we remain concerned that continuing to issue citation in this case is a risk for between many of the same harms the reform seeks to eliminate.

Uh this reform is an important step towards fairness, but we remain concerned that the last impact from continuing to issue citation for this same cases will absolutely recreate the same circle of uh both.

We are seeking to end.

When residents can't afford to pay uh mounting fines, those debts often escalate into collections, credit damage, uh DMV holds as well as preventing individuals from obtaining rental housing, keeping people trapped and vulnerable to life changes at any moment.

To truly fix, we urge the council to include an amendment preventing the city from reporting unpaid fines relating to expired registration to the DMV in addition to collection agencies.

Let's make sure this policy not only ends disproportionate tows but also ends the financial threat that comes with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Janica Faulkner, and you have been seated time by itself.

Is it cell present?

Thank you.

So I will put three minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Good afternoon.

My name is Janica here today on behalf of Alliance San Diego and the Coalition for Equitable Development and support of amending the council's policy relating to the towing program.

We strongly support the city's effort to end towing for expired registration, a practice that has long disproportionately harmed low-income San Diegans and communities of color.

However, we remain concerned that continuing continuing to issue citations in these cases risk perpetuating many of the same harms the reform seeks to eliminate.

This reform is an important step toward fairness, but we remain concerned that the last in the last impacts from continuing to issue citations for these same cases will absolutely recreate the same cycle of poverty we are seeking to end.

When residents can't afford to pay mounting fines, those debts often escalate into collections, credit damage, DMV holds, as well as preventing individuals from obtaining rental housing, keeping people trapped and vulnerable to life changes at any moment.

To truly fix this, we urge the council to include an amendment preventing the city from reporting unpaid fines related to expired registrations to the DMV, in addition to collections agencies.

Let's make this policy, let's make sure this policy not only ends disproportionate towes, but also ends the financial traps that come with them.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Chris Kennison.

Hello, Council.

Um, my name is Chris, and here today on behalf of Alliance San Diego and the Coalition for Equitable Development in support of amending the council's policy relating to the towing program.

We strongly support the city's effort to end towing for expired registration.

Um, this practice has long disp disproportionately harmed low-income San Diegans and communities of color.

However, we remain concerned that continuing this issue, continuing to issue citations in these cases risk perpetuating many of the same harms the reform seeks to eliminate.

To truly fix this, we urge council to include an amendment preventing the city from reporting unpaid fines related to expired registration to the DMV, in addition to the collection agencies.

Um let's make sure this policy not only ends disproportion disproportionate towes, but also ends the financial trap that comes with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jesse Schmidty, and you have been seated time by Aaron Sarimoto.

Thank you.

So I will place three minutes on the clock.

Thank you, and good afternoon, Chair Von Wilbert, members of the committee.

Uh, my name is Jesse Schmidt, State Policy Manager for Alliance San Diego and co-convener uh of the Coalition for Equitable Development.

Alliance San Diego deeply appreciates uh Councilmember Whitburn's leadership in advancing this important ordinance to address inequities within the city's towing program.

We strongly support the effort to end towing for expired registrations, which is disproportionately impacted low-income San Diegans and our communities of color.

However, we remain concerned that continuing to issue citations in these case in these cases risk perpetuating many of those same harms that this very reform seeks to eliminate.

When residents are unable to pay mounting fines, these debts often escalate to collections, credit score reductions, and DMV registration holds, each compounding financial instability and leaving individuals still vulnerable to future towes and steep debts.

From a policy perspective, addressing these cascading penalties is critical to breaking the cycle that turns minor infractions into long-term economic hardship.

We would welcome the opportunity to collaborate on ways to ensure that the revised policy truly mitigates and not merely shifts the disproportionate impact of the towing program on vulnerable San Diegans.

We would encourage the city to look to programs like the lights out or sorry, the lights on voucher program, which offered 250 dollars to community members who were stopped by local PD for broken headlights.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patricia Madragon.

You will be followed by Lori Saldania, Ted Womack, and Layla Aziz.

If those individuals can please come up to the reserve seats at the front of the room, and we will begin with Patricia Modragon.

Good afternoon, Councilmember Patricia Mondragon.

I'm a South Park resident and D3 constituent.

Each time this topic comes up, I'm reminded of a car that I drove by in my neighborhood for weeks.

It was an older car with expired plates, tickets, and a boot.

In white chalk paint, the owner had written, single mom need help along with her Venmo account.

I'm a single mom too, and at the time I was barely getting by myself.

Seeing that message broke my heart.

It was a plea for compassion, not punishment.

One day the car was gone, likely impounded and sold, and with it someone's lifeline to work, child care, and stability.

While we appreciate Councilmember Whitburns for bringing this forward, we urge you to include an amendment that stops the city from reporting citations to the DMV or credit agencies.

These reports can severely damage a person's financial record and make it harder to secure housing.

Trapping people in a vicious cycle of poverty instead of giving them a fair chance to get back on their feet.

So we urge an amendment.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Lori Saldania.

You have been seated time by Isabel.

Is Isabel present?

Thank you.

So three minutes on the clock.

Thank you.

The previous speaker did an excellent job of summarizing how this can quickly turn into a downward spiral of poverty for many people.

And in fact, we have testified in the past that there are many unhoused people who rely on their cars for shelter.

And when they are cited or towed, they really are paying twice because the DMV is likely already charging them much more for the registration that's expired.

And now the city is adding to that burden and it's putting them again into a downward spiral that could lead to the loss of their vehicle and their ability to get to work and medical care and other services.

So I appreciate that you are making these changes.

I encourage you to adopt the suggestions that others have mentioned.

I also would encourage you to look at what the contracts are for towing companies because they make money when they sell those cars.

And for a while, when I served in the legislature, it turned out the city of Escondido was increasingly impounding vehicles of people who were not documented.

And they would not come forward and get their cars, and the towing companies would know that, target those communities, and sell those cars for profit.

And the cost of the contract between the city and those companies went higher and higher and higher because they were so lucrative for the companies that were ending up in control of those cars.

I would ask you to consider something else.

Hybrid vehicles are charged more when they are towed.

There's a $50 fee added onto a hybrid vehicle.

I'm not sure what the purpose is of that, but I have been told that there's some equipment that they're concerned about.

Perhaps in the early days of hybrid technology, that was the case, but it seems uh antithetical to have a hybrid driver get charged more if their car is towed for any reason when we're trying to have a climate action plan and reduce great greenhouse gas emissions.

So I'd ask that you also investigate the tow operators.

What is their policy on towing hybrid vehicles?

And are they charging people more?

And if so, what is the rationale behind that?

Is it really necessary?

And finally, I would just say that there are often personal belongings, especially in the case of people who have uh who are unhoused, they are storing sometimes essential personal items, their medications, their personal identification papers in their vehicles.

And that is a serious problem when those documents and belongings end up being uh discarded intentionally or through theft.

So all of those things impact people's ability to survive in San Diego at certain levels and also just to get carry on with their lives.

When those belongings have to be replaced, there's a cost both in money and in time involved.

So I hope you will take all of that into account, not just the loss of the vehicle, but the costs associated with that and also the loss of belongings that may be stored inside the vehicles, especially for somebody who is unsheltered and has no other place to store them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ted Womack.

Hello.

Excuse me.

Hello, uh, thank you for all your time today.

Um, and just like my other colleagues from Alliance San Diego, I want to ask you to adopt that amendment so that we're not continually giving people citations.

Um, as a person who was a victim of poverty tows, and I will say a victim because of my circumstance, I was actually just about to pay for my registration to bring my car up to date before I got towed.

It was parked outside of my apartment.

I was making repairs on it myself because it would have been really expensive to take it to a shop, and I had been working on it for about two or three months.

And literally the week before I was going to go take it to get it re-registered, it got towed away.

I paid $3,000 for the car.

Wasn't paying $6,000 to get it back.

So these type of scenarios just don't help people get their life together.

It's not something that's necessarily a solution to be able to take something away and penalize somebody because if they can't pay now, they can't pay more money later.

So I would just like to ask that you adopt that amendment so that we're not continually giving people citations even after the fact.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker here in Chambers is Layla Aziz.

Thank you for bringing up this important policy.

We have a few complaints that are in.

And as some of you know who have read my emails, the police department is no longer categorizing these complaints by one or two.

They put them in miscellaneous so that no one sees them.

And that includes the touching and inappropriate touching and leaving a child three years old on the streets by herself.

So we have Clame Able and Alvina Abel.

Their car was towed.

Their car was towed because the police said they didn't commit any crime, but resisting arrest, which the city attorney did not pick up.

They did not get their money back, and they tried to go through the policy that San Diego Police Department has where you can challenge a tow, and they always say no.

Another complaint we have in the system that you might not see because it's probably miscellaneous now is the Atkins complaint.

That young man was leaving FAT Camp.

He was pulled over by the police because a detective mistakenly thought his car was another vehicle.

They lied for the stop and said he was doing 65.

We sent a mathematician out there.

It's physically impossible.

It defies all laws of physics.

His car was towed and a hold was put on it.

His mom had to get that car out.

They have not received compensation yet.

We have another our staff member whose car was also towed because he had made a complaint, and the San Diego police department retaliated against him for making a complaint on a supervisor who said he was going to shred his complaint.

You have that email, Marnie.

And his car was towed, and his family who's trying to buy a house had to pay for that tow.

So please look a little deeper.

Thank you.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment to item number two.

Each speaker will have a minute and a half.

We will begin with individual Zoom user.

If you can please unmute and begin.

All right, we will come back to you.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

You will have one minute and a half.

Hi.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Happy mid-November, I think we're about in.

Um thank you a lot for this item.

Um it was really interesting to hear.

Uh it's hopeful.

And um, I I know that for myself that uh from best practices in towing uh from a few years ago.

You uh very much changed how towing was taking place in downtown.

Uh it was uh a real mess what was going on in downtown.

And and people would act, you know, be parking after the no parking signs would come up at nighttime, and it would just be an uh an hour session of tow trucks taking cars out, and it just got a little ridiculous and uncomfortable after a time.

And you guys figured out a solution to that, and thank you.

And um so I and that was using best practices.

That was coming to this council session and and doing exactly what you're doing here today, and just talking and just working towards best practices.

I just hope we can always be uh, you know, our best practices bring out you know our best selves, basically.

And uh so you're trying to do that here at this time.

I hope we can do that with uh recent issues about uh bus uh trolley use uh along uh the tr the main trolley uh corridors at this time.

They're issuing tickets at an alarming rate that I hope uh we can better discuss at uh bus meetings.

Uh so but uh thank you for the sighting overall and good luck what you can do here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Your time has concluded.

Our next speaker is David DeArman.

If you can please unmute and begin, you will have a minute and a half.

Yes, can you hear me?

We can hear you, please proceed.

My son was murdered by San Diego Police Department.

They ran the plates, registered in my name, everything was clean.

Subsequently, the truck was towed and kept as evidence and then delivered to a tow yard.

Two years passed by, no information at all.

I actually tried to register it online and it said no such vehicle exists.

I then got a letter in the mail telling me I had two weeks to pick the vehicle or if it would be sold at auction.

So now I had to pay the tow fees and the linker registration fees.

This is entirely unsatisfactory, and undoubtedly this will adversely affect people less fortunate than myself.

Thank you.

Does that conclude your statement?

Yes.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Nancy Bem.

Please unmute and begin.

Uh hi.

I am a resident of district nine.

I worked in Home of Services in San Diego County for about uh eight years now.

Um, and just want to second uh everything the representatives from PANA and Alliance have shared.

This amendment is a step in the right direction.

Certainly, by destroying someone's entire livelihood.

There are so many clients that I've worked with that have lived out of their car because they cannot afford housing here.

And I've had several who have lost their vehicle and by loss, stolen, I'd say, by towing companies for failure to pay registration.

So I encourage you to take the suggested steps of ensuring that any unpaid fines are not communicated to the DMV or any credit agencies.

And then instead, we look at this from a compassionate approach.

If somebody doesn't have the funds to pay for registration fee, they certainly are probably not going to have the funds to pay for a citation.

Perhaps we should be looking at creating a program to support people to become lawful drivers instead of continuing to punish and perpetuate poverty.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tanadson Cena Sanchez.

If you can please unmute and begin.

You will have one and a half minutes.

If you can please unmute and begin.

All right, we will return to you.

Giving Zoom user one final opportunity to speak.

Zoom user, I have given you permission to speak.

If you can please unmute and begin.

Zoom user.

Okay.

And giving to Naz and Cena Sanchez one final opportunity to provide comment.

Yes, good afternoon, council member.

I appreciate you coming back around to me.

As a single mother of seven kids residing in district eight, I would like to request that you guys do make amends to the towing regulations throughout the entire city.

I unfortunately right now do not have a vehicle because on the evening of my high school graduation, the two vehicles that we did have were towed from our apartments.

And I unfortunately was not able to get them released from the tow yards, nor was I able to get any of my belongings out of both the vehicles.

I don't see how there can't be any type of support that is given to our residents here in San Diego, given the fact that majority of us here are below the poverty level.

And when it comes to things like a vehicle, unfortunately, we do need access to a vehicle here in San Diego because it is time consuming to have to get on the bus and to have to transfer from bus to trolley lines.

We don't have a very um efficient transportation system.

So I would appreciate if you guys could really evaluate these towing fees as well as the process that it takes to get a vehicle out.

And speaking to what Mr.

DeArmin said, when vehicles are impounded by SDPD and taken in as evidence.

There also needs to be a better process as far as how residents or how people can get their property back, not just when it comes to vehicles, but also when it comes to personal belongings like cell phones and things of that nature, because there is a lack of oversight.

Thank you for your comment.

And Chair with no other hands in the queue and the virtual timer expiring.

This concludes testimony for item number two.

Thank you very much to the members of the public for commenting.

And I'll turn over to my colleagues for a motion or questions, beginning with Council Whitburn.

Thank you very much, Chair von Wolpert.

And thank you to the members of the public who offered those thoughtful comments this afternoon.

I'll just refer back to the story that I shared in introducing the item.

When a first generation college student drops out of school because the city took his car and sold it because the registration was overdue, it's obvious that the system isn't working.

Year after year, this hurts thousands of our residents, primarily the poor, which is why it is called a disproportionate impact tow.

It is the very definition of a structural inequity, an institutional practice that perpetuates poverty.

The audit committee recognized that and felt that we needed to do something about it and asked that I bring forward a policy change when it came to the city council, they recognized it too, and also requested that I bring forward a policy change.

And this is that policy change.

It says we should continue to enforce overdue registrations, but by giving people citations, not by taking and selling their car.

And I hear the concerns about the impact of citations as well.

And I am certainly interested in exploring payment plans or other programs to help keep citations from sending people into a dot word spiral as well.

The item before us is narrowly tailored.

It only applies to expired registrations and nothing else.

It does not affect the 72-hour parking ordinance, the abandoned vehicle ordinance, the vehicle habitation ordinance, or the oversized vehicle ordinance.

What it will do is it will correct an injustice that has damaged too many lives.

And I make the motion to adopt the recommendation.

Thank you, Chair von Wilbert.

Thank you very much.

We have a motion on the floor, and um I have a few questions and comments as well.

Um, thank you for your work.

Thank you for the presentation on this.

Uh thank you, Councilor Whitburn, for uh being so diligent about the people who this is affecting the most.

Um I do have a couple of of questions going forward.

So uh thank you for the audit showing that many of these cars that are towed are eventually auctioned off and you know that doesn't solve anyone's problems, I agree.

Um I also think we need to do a much better job with the tow companies who we allow to do business in the city.

And I'll get to that in a second, because the tow companies can only come and tow from a public right-away.

Private businesses can do they can contract with whomever they like, it's their private property.

But a public right-of-way, we allow companies to come in through, I don't know if it's a franchise agreement, city attorney, what would you call it?

A whatever contract we allow.

They they bid they're allowed to come.

Um so my first question is about the the need for getting cars registered.

That I do I do believe we have to cars need to be registered.

One of the requirements to register a vehicle in the state of California is that you do need to have insurance, proof of insurance.

And um there are um programs in the state of California in the DMV that allow for lower income families to get lower cost insurance and lower fees for registration, which they should.

We should not have a barrier to registration being simply you don't have enough money, you can't register your car.

I think that's ridiculous.

We should allow people to register, say they have proof of insurance, say they have proof of smog check, which is important.

I mean, how many times have we driven on a highway and seen a car blowing smoke out and everybody gets upset about it?

We need to enforce our smog requirements, we need to enforce our registration, but especially proof of insurance.

There is no other way for officers or law enforcement to see if a car is insured or not.

They can see if a car is registered or not.

Um I actually was hit by an uninsured driver um when I lived in Mississippi, it was pretty awful.

It was a Tuesday morning and he was highly intoxicated, and uh it was a pretty bad accident.

My car was totaled, his car was totaled.

Um on my way to the hospital, um, I was told that he had no insurance.

This wasn't even his car, and it wasn't registered.

And when I was getting my arms x-rayed, the hospital told me I'd have to pay my own medical bills when a drunk driver hit me.

I don't have that kind of money.

If someone's gonna operate a car on the public right-of-way, they need to have the basic responsibility of protecting everyone around them.

Now, insurance is expensive in the state of California and it is everywhere.

I understand.

However, on the DMV website, there is a low-cost insurance program.

And it was started by uh the state of California in 1999.

You can go to California DMV.gov and provide proof of good driving record, because they're not going to ensure you know, people who have multiple accents, DUIs, no company would insure them.

But the annual premiums in California vary by county, ranging from 244 dollars a year to $966 a year.

That's between $20 and $80 a month.

That is still hard for folks.

I understand that.

But if you were asking you to pay $20 a month to keep your car insured, I think people need to have insurance.

There's no other way to enforce insurance than through registration.

So if we I but towing the vehicle also is not going to enforce registration.

I understand that.

So the question is how are we going to incentivize people to continue to register their car, continue to have insurance other than by towing?

Because I agree with you, towing isn't going to help anything because then the car gets towed, we don't see the car again, and then people are in a deeper pocket than they were.

But how are we going to do the other half of this, which means we take away the towing penalty?

I'm on board with, I understand.

But what are we going to do to incentivize people to have their cars registered?

Especially when there are programs at the California state level for lower cost registration based on income, lower cost insurance based on income.

The challenge is then the San Diego parking tickets.

Because once we ticket a car and issue citation, you cannot get your car registered at the DMV unless you show that you have satisfied all parking tickets.

One of the things that I worked on when I was a deputy city attorney was when it came to folks who were going through our homeless court program.

We have a program called the Clean Plates program.

If you can show you have gone through homeless court and had your misdemeanors, you know, um any other criminal convictions expunged by a judge because you are getting your life back in order and getting back up on your feet.

We then at the city of San Diego will allow you to uh petition to get all of your past parking citations expunged so that you can, once you're back on your feet, go and register your car without paying the city of San Diego thousands of dollars of back parking fees.

Um we expanded it when I was a city attorney.

I asked the treasurer and I said, What if people don't have a misdemeanor?

You can only go to homeless court if you have a misdemeanor or an infraction.

There are homeless, there are many homeless folks who have never committed a crime and are going through sobriety programs or going through career education programs at Father Joe's at Veterans Village, others, they too should have the same opportunity to have their license plates wiped clean of parking infractions that happened during their homelessness.

And so we did.

We expanded it.

We no longer require court order.

We require a letter from an accredited, not accredited, but from a certain, you know, someone in a homeless services provider to say, this person went through my program, they're going to school again or they're back on their feet.

They went to the sobriety program, please, City of San Diego, wipe their parking tickets clean so that they can register their cars.

We did that.

I worked on that with the treasurer.

And so my question is here for this, you know, when going forward to council.

Um issuing citations to encourage people to get registration can also then be a barrier to them getting registration because they have to pay them in order to get registered.

However, we need people to register cars.

We cannot have uninsured motorists coming and driving on the road.

We cannot have people who don't have basic, you have to make sure your tail lights work, for example, and your car is operable when you go see a registration project.

We cannot have people operating dangerous cars on the road.

And the way you do that is through registration.

So I would like to know if going forward, between this and full council, uh, can the mayor and you know, council member can your office work with the city treasurer to figure out a way to once people do come forward and say, hey, I do want to register my vehicle, I have, you know, I'm able to do this, but now my problem is I got five citations for unpaid vehicle registration.

Can you work with the city treasurer to figure out a way to make it so that they can pay either the payment program or waive them so they can register their vehicle?

The work that you did as a deputy city attorney uh to help those folks actually solve the issue that they were facing in a way to get back on their feet is exactly what we ought to be doing.

And yes, you have my commitment to work with the treasurer to try to find a way that we can move something like that forward.

Okay, thank you.

I mean the treasurer has legal requirements, they can't simply waive debt without proving that it would cost more to collect the debt because believe me, everybody would ask to waive their debts.

But can the mayor's office also commit to that?

Yes, council member, I believe that there's multiple programs that the city currently offers that um assesses similar um individuals with lower incomes that can't meet or pay their citations, and so more than happy to work with treasurer's office and district three um to uh better strengthen that policy.

Okay.

Um at the same time, though, I we do have to enforce the rules.

People need to register their cars, and so I do understand the need to issue a citation, it's better than a tow, but once folks are able to do that, they should be able to get out from a mountain of debt that they couldn't pay anyway.

So that's what I want to be able to happen.

The second thing is these tow companies.

We know that many of them are predatory, um, and many of them are working on private property, which is hard for the city of C and D to regulate.

However, if someone's car gets towed from a public right-of-way, I have no understanding of why on earth that tow company wouldn't let someone go to their vehicle and get their personal belongings out of it.

That makes no sense to me.

What if their house keys are in it?

What if their work uniform is in it?

What if their child care supplies are in it?

I just I don't understand the benefit to the tow company of not allowing people to simply get their personal belongings out of their car.

I mean, I have so many of my personal belongings in my car.

And so, and also, why is there no low-income programs for folks whose car gets towed?

You know, when I when we go to court, for example, the filing fee for court is what 400 and something dollars.

I haven't practiced in a couple of years now, but it's almost 500 simply to file a petition in court for a divorce for a name change for anything.

And we don't turn people away at the courthouse door if they can't pay that filing fee.

We have a program by which you can pluve lower income and we can waive the fee.

And so our tow companies should also have to do that.

Because as Councillor Whitburn pointed out, auctioning off the car isn't cost recovery.

And so it's it's easier for people to be able to get their cars out in an earlier amount of time so they don't rack up the fees.

And so I'm wondering if in our franchise agreements or whatever the legal term is to allow the tow companies to operate.

I don't know, franchise is the right word.

Can we evaluate them to make sure if they do want to bid to do work in the city?

They have to have these things.

They have to have a requirement to ride low-income path to get your car out.

So I just we can't do that today because it wasn't noticed under the Brown Act.

But could I have your commitment that we work on that going forward as well?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

There are instances we have to tow cars.

We only have so many streets.

I do understand that, but it shouldn't be as onerous as it is once it happens.

Um those are my thoughts on on the program today.

This is a very complicated thing you're taking on, but um, it's very important, and I appreciate what you're doing, and I see Council Campbell's on the lights.

Go ahead.

Oh, thank you, Chair.

Um I I too agree that it just seems egregious to take a car away from somebody without even giving them warning.

Uh definitely they should have a citation first, at least one, maybe two.

However, if they just completely ignore the rules and go onward and not do anything about it, that's not good either.

And they are gonna get their car towed if they ignore the rules.

So I think the the answer also includes not only give them a citation, but give them information.

There are organizations, and perhaps Alliance San Diego could take this up as one of their projects, to provide transitional money, maybe even over a period of time for the people to pay it back if they can, or just to donate it to them so they can get their car registered.

And you know, there are many charities that have these kinds of programs.

Well, where if you're in need of cash just for the moment, like maybe you just couldn't quite make rent that month, go to this organization, ask for help to bridge that little financial gap.

If you don't have relatives you can ask or friends you can ask, or a GoFundMe thing that you could put up, then there should be other methods by which you can get some help because to get your car taken away is really a big deal.

So let's try and make figure out we we can all work together within the Brown Act so that we can make this a really good uh uh policy so that people will be able to function and get their registration when they need to and not have to have their cars taken away because after all, a lot of people depend, most people depend tremendously on their vehicles.

So thank you so much for bringing this forward and I look forward to helping out with it.

Thanks so much.

All right, uh, Dr.

Jan has that a second to the motion as well.

I'll second it, yeah.

Okay, thank you.

Um, does anyone else have any comments or questions?

So we do have the commitments to make sure because we have to balance enforcement with providing people opportunities to meet those enforcement requirements.

So we have your commitment that we worked on.

Okay.

Okay, all right.

Thank you very much.

Then um, please call the roll.

And item number two passes unanimously 4-0.

All right, thank you very much for the presentation again, and now we're gonna move on to our last item.

Sarah, please introduce item three.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number three is approve a resolution authorizing the continued use of the approved 54 surveillance technologies under the trust ordinance.

If you're watching on City TV or the live stream online and you'd like to call in to the meeting to speak, please call 1669-2545252 inputting webinar ID 161-217-1797 pound.

Chair.

Chairman, right?

Welcome to our presenters.

Please introduce yourselves to the record and let us know how much time you'll need for your presentation today.

I'm Cabin Charles Laura.

I'm from Research Analysis and Planning, and we're going to need about 15 minutes.

15 minutes, Kid.

Lieutenant Chris McCandrew.

Please proceed.

All right.

Good afternoon, Council members.

Today we'll be presenting our 2024 annual surveillance report.

The report explores the surveillance technologies we use, how we use them, and the safeguards in place to ensure they're used responsibly.

It gives the public a better understanding of how these tools support safety in our neighborhoods while protecting the civil rights and privacy of our residents.

This requirement was recreated by the trust ordinance, a process that was designed to be collaborative.

And as you all know, true collaboration is hard work.

It required us to balance the need to address crime and public safety with the responsibility to safeguard privacy and civil liberties.

When the effort is successful, we get stronger, clearer, and more accountable policies without losing the effectiveness of our public safety tools.

That's the kind of work we've been busy doing.

Over the past several months, SCPD has worked closely with the Privacy Advisory Board to review and strengthen our over our surveillance policies.

That partnership has led to clearer rules, stronger oversight, and more transparency for the community.

After we briefly walk through the report, we're going to focus on one system in particular automated license plate recognition, or ALPR.

This technology has been truly game-changing for our department, especially while we continue to operate with hundreds of officers below ideal staffing levels.

It helps us solve cases every single week.

It helps us find stolen vehicles, identify suspects in violent crimes, locate missing or at risk community members, and build stronger cases that hold up in court.

And because this system alerts us only when a vehicle is tied to a crime or safety concern, it allows us precise policing, reducing unnecessary stops, and helping officers to spend their time where it matters most.

The updates we'll show today to policy language, data security practices and auditing were made jointly with the Privacy Advisory Board and are rooted in transparency and accountability.

We believe we can protect public safety and privacy at the same time.

Each one has already gone through the full oversight process.

That means we they were discussed in community presentations, reviewed by the Privacy Advisory Board, and approved by City Council.

The annual surveillance report is how we continue that transparency each year.

Some of these tools we use every day, like body worn cameras.

Others, like smart street lights and ALPR support ongoing investigations.

And some are used only in very specific situations.

Like our SWAT robots that help us resolve high-risk incidents safely.

Together, these technologies help us solve crimes, protect both community members and officers, and use our resources more efficiently and precisely.

This year we are proposing updates to eight of the 54 use policies which are required for each technology.

These changes do not expand the capabilities of the technologies themselves.

They are policy and clarification updates.

The eight technologies include three mobile device forensic tools, two types of SWAT robots, body-worn cameras, smart street lights, and the ALPR system.

The use policy changes encompass mobile device forensic tools.

These are tools used to extract data from mobile devices with either a warrant or consent.

In 2024, they supported over 350 investigations and handled data from about 576 devices.

The update mainly reflects uh current usage and staffing, allowing trained forensic technology unit staff, not only criminalists, to operate the tools when needed.

Body worn cameras.

We changed the policy to body worn camera system and removed references to specific model names like Axon Body 3.

This allows us to uh adopt updated camera uh hardware in the future without needing to restart the approval process as long as the technology functions the same way.

Any major functional change would still have to go back through the trust ordinance process.

SWAT robots.

For the first look Gen 2 robot, we clarified that it can also be deployed by the special operations unit, but only if a trained SWAT or SLU supervisor authorizes it.

The robot will still only be operated by SWAT.

We also added language describing the ICOR mini caliber robot can be used to deploy chemical agents remotely when necessary, and that the ICOR robot can only be operated by SWAT personnel.

Smart Streetlights.

We replaced references to the old special projects legislative affairs unit with the program administrator to reflect the department's new structure and removed an outdated section about modifying the use policy to align it with other surveillance technology policies under the trust ordinance.

The technology we are most focused on over the last several months was our ALPR system.

This collaborative effort, done in partnership with the privacy advisory board, resulted in numerous changes to our use policy and our ALPR report, annual ALPR report.

Here with me is Lieutenant Chris McAndrew, who will tell you more about that effort.

The automated license plate recognition is a stationary camera that captures images of cars passing by on public streets.

It scans the license plates and other basic vehicle details like make and color.

It cannot see who is inside the vehicle or identify the driver.

The systems automatically capture the license plate number to databases of or compares the license plate number to databases of stolen vehicles, vehicles connected to crimes, and alerts for missing or at risk individuals.

All ALPR data is automatically deleted after 30 days unless it becomes part of an investigation.

It's important to note that the investigators only extract images as evidence that are associated with a suspect vehicle that pertains to a specific location and moment in time, the time of the incident or crime.

The vast majority of data is never viewed.

Over the past three months, the San Diego Police Department has worked closely with the Privacy Advisory Board to review how we use AOPR technology and to update two key documents.

The annual report, which explains how the system was used over the past year, and the safeguards in place to protect privacy and the use policy, which sets the rules for how the technology can be used.

As Captain Laura mentioned, collaboration takes time and real effort, and we approached it that way.

Our goal was to make sure AOPR continues to be an effective tool for solving crime and locating missing or at-risk people while also protecting privacy and civil rights.

Through this review, SDPD and PAB made meaningful improvements, including clearer policy language, more details, more detail about data security, and stronger auditing procedures.

We know it's not enough to say the system is used responsibly.

Those expectations have to be written into policy.

We made many policy updates alongside the PAB, but some of the most important ones involved our third-party sharing rules.

Our policy now clearly states that we do not share with federal agencies, out-of-state agencies, or private entities for any reason.

We also never share for immigration purposes to federal task forces or to assisting cases involving reproductive care.

Since our AOPR system was installed, we have never once used the system to aid an immigration enforcement.

We also added that if an agency wants to use a core order to get our ALPR data, it has to be a California court order.

Finally, ALPR can never be sold.

Our ALPR vendor, Flock Safety, is contractually obligated to adhere to all aspects of our use policy.

We also focused on data security because strong policy only matters if the system itself is protected.

First, every time an SDPD employee accesses ALPR data, they must log in through the city's secure sign-on system.

Every search is recorded by the user name, the date, and time, and it must be tied to a valid case or incident number.

So there is a clear record of who searched, why they searched, and when.

Second, the city's IT department reviewed the vendor's security setup.

They confirmed the system meets a very high security standard, the kind that would be difficult and expensive for the city to maintain on its own.

Third, the vendor, Flock Safety, follows strong cybersecurity practices and holds several nationally recognized security certifications, including SOC 2 Type 2, which is a leading standard for secure data management.

At our request, these certifications were also made available to the privacy advisory board so they could review them directly.

And as we said before, all AOPR data belongs to the city and only SDP SDPD personnel have access to it.

We also strengthen auditing and accountability to make sure that the system is being used properly and only for legitimate investigations.

As we said earlier, all ALPR searches must include a valid case or incident number.

This was a practice we created in partnership with PAB and eventually became a part of Flock's system.

Now law enforcement agencies across the country log searches this way.

Every week, we conduct audits of these searches.

A designated supervisor reviews them to confirm searches are linked to real cases, data is only kept for the allowed time, users have completed their required annual training, and the equipment is working correctly.

We also work with our vendor and the privacy advisory board to build a new audit reporting tool.

We know our community wants a better understanding of the kinds of cases that we use the system for, but we can't always release that information easily without jeopardizing case details.

Soon, when an officer conducts a search, they must choose the type of case from a standardized list, like a homicide, burglary, or a missing person, which makes it easier for us to explain publicly how the system is being used.

And this feature should be rolled out in the next few weeks.

In addition, we began publishing monthly audits on our website so anyone can see how the system is being used.

Those audits are currently available on the department's ALPR webpage.

Our work with the PAB isn't just making our process better, it's making the system more transparent for communities across the country.

We also work closely with the PAB to update our annual ALPR report, which explains how the ALPR system was used over the past year and describes oversight practices and safeguards in place.

When we first submitted the AOPR report earlier this year, it was about three pages long.

After several months of working closely with the Privacy Advisory Board, the updated report is now nearly 30 pages.

This increase reflects the depth of the collaboration and the level of detail the community asks for, especially around how the system is used, how data is secure, and how audits are conducted.

While we were able to work with most of PAB's feedback, there were two recommendations we could not accept, and it's important to explain why.

The first is a requirement to obtain a warrant to look at AOPR data older than 24 hours.

AOPR only captures license plates on public streets, something anyone can see.

Because there is no expectation of privacy in a license plate that is already publicly visible, courts have consistently held that warrant is not required to use this type of information.

So requiring a warrant for this data would not be legally appropriate.

The second is shortening our data retention period from 30 days to 14 days.

Retention matters because many cases do not come together immediately.

Sometimes the crime itself isn't reported right away.

Sometimes key leads or witnesses don't surface for days or weeks.

And once a suspect is identified, prosecutors often rely on historical ALPR data to confirm timelines and build a case that holds up in court.

If the data is gone too soon, both investigation and prosecutor and prosecutions are weakened.

A 14-day retention period would make the system far less effective.

When considering retention, it's important to understand the investigative timeline.

In a perfect world, after a crime occurs, it would be immediately reported, dispatched, investigated, and evidence would be identified and collected.

Unfortunately, we know this is not the case.

Once the crime occurs, the clock starts.

The time between the crime occurring and being reported can vary.

Hot prowls are reported immediately, but what about a burglary to a house while family is on vacation or a sexual assault where the victim is building the courage to come forward?

This could be days or even weeks.

After the crime is reported, an officer is dispatched to the scene.

Due to low staffing, it could take some time before the officer arrives and conducts the initial investigation.

The investigation is then submitted and a detective is assigned.

If the case is submitted on a Friday, the detective won't receive the case until the following week.

Once assigned, the detective must check for surveillance video, review reports, witness statements, and piece together evidence to build a case.

At this point, once the detective establishes a timeline and its possible suspect vehicle, they can turn to ALPR system to locate relevant evidence and hopefully identify the suspect vehicle at the scene.

This entire process can take several weeks.

And currently, San Diego has a 30-day ALPR retention period.

Nationally, the average ALPR retention period is between six months and two years.

Cities like New York and Los Angeles retain ALPR data for five years, while other major cities like Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Jose, retain ALPR data for one year.

Even within San Diego County, we are on the lowest end of retention.

The Sheriff's Department, Coronado, Oceanside, Carlsbad, and Chula Vista all have one year retentions, while Escondido is at two.

Some cities are seeing the investigative value in longer ALPR retention times.

For example, Oakland, whose ALPR program with Flock Safety received an endorsement from the Oakland NAACP branch to not only continue but expand its AOPR program, has increased their AOPR retention from 30 days to one year, and wants to expand it further to 730 days.

Recently, Governor Gavin Newsom noted that a 60-day retention period, the timeframe proposed in SB 274, which he vetoed, may be too short for conducting meaningful investigations, particularly in cases involving complex and serial offenses.

At the end of the day, the system isn't about hardware or software.

It's about people.

AOPR has helped families get their cars back, helped victims get answers, and helped reunite missing community members with their loved ones.

In its first year, we saw motor vehicle thefts drop by more than 20%.

That is a direct benefit to everyday residents.

Here are just a few examples of how AOPR has worked in some of our most serious investigations and most urgent missing person cases.

On June 20th, an Eastern Division detective requested that a suspect vehicle in an attempted kidnapping of a six-year-old be entered into SDPD's AOPR hot list, allowing citywide alerts in the vehicle passed in ALPR camera.

At 3 45 p.m.

that same day, the AOPR system detected the vehicle in downtown San Diego, prompting an immediate patrol response.

Within minutes, Central Division officers located the vehicle and detained the suspect.

He was arrested for attempted kidnapping in the Mission Valley area two days prior.

A total of 24 investigators conducted 237 AOPR searches throughout the investigation, reflecting SDPD's coordinated data-driven effort to locate the suspect quickly.

SDPD investigated a series of hate crime-related assaults around the 601,000 University Avenue in the Hillcrest neighborhood, which occurred in early September.

Multiple victims were struck with gel-style pellets as they walked on the sidewalk.

Investigators from criminal intelligence unit began the investigation, searched for evidence, and collected any available video surveillance.

The detectives were about were able to obtain footage of a vehicle from a surveillance camera.

Using that information, detectives were able to use the AOPR system to identify the vehicle, which ultimately led to multiple suspects being identified.

In November, warrants were served and three suspects were arrested for multiple hate crime related charges.

On November 19th, 2024, two businesses in the Tierra Santa community were burglarized.

Surveillance video captured a gray sedan involved in the crime, but the license plate was partially obscured.

Using AOPR data, detectives were able to identify a potential vehicle and license plate connected to the burglaries.

On November 25th, the same vehicle returned to the Tierra Santa and was involved in two additional business burglaries, confirming it as the suspect vehicle.

Detectives shared the vehicle and suspect information with patrol officers citywide.

On December 12th, two more burglaries occurred in the Forest Ranch and University City areas.

Although limited suspect information was available, officers used ALPR data from their prior investigation and discovered the suspect vehicle had been detected nearby.

Patrol units saturated the area, located the vehicle, and arrested the suspect without incident.

Throughout this multi-jurisdictional investigation, officers conducted over 3,000 ALPR searches to gather evidence, conduct related cases, and locate the suspect.

In 2024, there were 35 homicides in San Diego.

AOPR helped solve a third of them, and of that, four of the cases would not have been solved without this technology.

The ALPR system has helped locate multiple missing persons, including community members with Alzheimer's and dementia.

It helped identify two hit and run drivers who struck and killed a bicyclist last May.

In April of 2024, an ALPR alert led officers to a stolen vehicle within minutes, resulting in the safe arrest of a driver and the recovery of a loaded ghost gun, drugs, and burglary tools.

In June, the system led investigators to a man suspected of sexually assaulting a girl under the age of 14, who was later convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

That's just a few examples.

In total, AOPR technology played a key role in over 290 investigations in 2024.

And to date, it has assisted in over 600 investigations.

Since its launch, the technology has proven to be a force multiplier for public safety and is the most significant public safety technology advancement in recent times for our department in San Diego.

It has enhanced our ability to not only locate stolen vehicles, identify suspect vehicles, and quickly apprehend suspects from robberies, homicides, and attempted child abductions, but has also been instrumental in locating five missing people.

AOPR has saved investigators time by providing strong investigative leaves, reducing the need for citywide saturation patrols by identifying the correct suspect vehicle, and eliminated countless unnecessary encounters between law enforcement community due to vague suspect vehicle descriptions.

When paired with clear use policies and transparent reporting, San Diego can be the leading city in AOPR use and accountability.

The partnership with PAB has yielded positive results.

The auditing and accountability improvements made in conjunction with PAB had led to nationwide adoption by San Diego standards by our AOPR vendor.

We will continue to work on advancements in auditing, accountability, and success tracking with PAB to remain the forefront of transparency and accountability nationwide.

AOPR has done what we hoped it would.

It allows us to do more with fewer resources, rapidly solve cases, and make our community safer.

This is the future of precision policing.

Thank you very much.

And we'll now turn to any public comment on this item.

Sarah, please take public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received we've received 35 speaker slips here in chambers, so we will begin testimony with Catherine Douglas.

And if these individuals can please come to the front of the room with the reserve seats, you will be followed by Fred Taiko, Marcella Turan, and Clayton Fowler.

Each speaker will have a minute and a half.

Catherine Douglas, you have been seated time by Stone and by Kathy.

Okay, then I will place three minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Based on the latest ALPR data, there is not one council member who can refute the fact that ALPRs are a game changer for crime solving.

This technology is an undeniable force multiplier for our critically understaffed police department.

Technology with right safeguards is the crux of precision policing, a law enforcement strategy strategy that focuses resources on those actually committing the crime and eliminates any involvement with law abiding citizens.

It enables SDPD to look for the red truck involved in a crime without stopping every red truck.

Less stopping of those not involved.

This is what your constituents want.

A stolen vehicle is often the sole family vehicle.

It's far more than just a possession.

It's a lifeline for this family to get to work, transport children to school, access health care, and travel to obtain needed items that are not available in many underserved communities.

ALPRs have substantially increased the number of stolen vehicles recovered.

Remember the eloquent young man who spoke at an earlier hearing on this who said if we had these cameras when my grandmother was killed at the park, the murderer would have been apprehended.

His grandmother's killer was never caught.

This is not the outcome he or anyone else deserves.

The Oakland chapter of the NAACP called for the continued and expanded use of flock ALPR cameras across the city because they are effective of their effectiveness in fighting and solving crimes.

Please do not take us backwards.

Your yes vote today and at full council signals that you are willing to do the difficult work to achieve a truly collaborative effort that supports this game-changing precision policing tool.

The city conducted a survey related to the use of ALPRs, and the respondents overwhelmingly responded that they had no concerns.

We need ALPRs for everyone's safety.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Fred Taiko, and you have been seated at time by Marshall Anderson.

So I will place three minutes on the clock.

Honorable Chair and members of the Council.

San Diego's vibrant tourism economy depends on both the safety of our workforce and the strong reputation of the city for safety for travelers.

The automated license plate readers are a vital tool to help law enforcement solve crimes, provide justice to victims, particularly at a time when existing law enforcement resources are stretched thin.

Now, we recognize that there's an important privacy concern.

The lodging community has been significantly affected by the increased immigration enforcement actions.

That said, we believe the policy strikes the right the right balance because it is governed by stringent regulations designed to ensure that both privacy and civil rights are protected.

And therefore, maintain that community's trust.

For these reasons, we strongly urge your continued use and if appropriate, the expansion of automated licensed plate licensed plate readers.

We respectfully ask for your support for item number three.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Marcella Turan.

Good afternoon.

Again, my name is Marcella Turan.

I'm a neighborhood watch coordinator volunteer in my community, and we're number two in violent crime, which is a big concern for me, especially in our community, especially since we're very low in police force.

But I'm happy to hear I'm happy to be here to support the continued use of this technology, and I hope that you will support it as well.

You know that you know that and you've heard that it effectively solves many crimes and kept has kept residents safer when our police cannot possibly be everywhere at all times.

ALPRs have helped officers stop the abduction of children, you've heard, fine elderly have solved hate crimes, stolen vehicles have been recovered, and many more positive things that affect all of our lives.

As you're aware that the San Diego police continue to lose huge numbers of police every year, and their patrols are not fully staffed, and in our lifetime, it probably never will.

So I hope you will use your support today to continue the use of the technology of the ALPRs.

Thank you.

Thank you, Clayton Fowler.

And Clayton, you will be followed by Homara, the Tricia Madragon, and Jesse Schmidty.

If these individuals can please make their way to the front of the room.

Mr.

Fowler, you'll have a minute and a half.

Good afternoon, Chair Von Wilbert and committee members.

My name is Clayton Fowler with the Downtown San Diego Partnership.

For over three decades, DSTP has made has remained committed to bolstering the economic prosperity and cultural vitality of downtown.

Reducing crime and improving public safety and cleanliness is a top priority for our downtown residents, workers, business owners, and visitors.

DSDP is has organized a coalition of stakeholders and availed a five-point safety plan that prioritizes reducing crime and improving public safety and cleanliness in downtown.

One of these items in this plan is to focus on increased police presence and posture by increasing daytime patrols and utilizing emergency emergency merging technologies.

As we all know, SDPD is severely understaffed, and ALPRs allowed to increase allow for increased police presence and posture through common sense technology.

This technology has time and time again shown to help solve crime by providing additional eyes to law enforcement.

We stand in support of SDPD and their and their service to our community and their dedication to utilizing such an important resource to our community to increase public safety.

We ask you to approve this item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hameira, and you have been seated time by Mohammed.

Thank you.

So I will place three minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Thank you, Council members.

My name is Hamira Yusupi with PANA and the Trust SD Coalition.

Today's item has many surveillance technology that are that are before you for review.

The purpose of the trust ordinances are so that you as council have more information to review these technologies and ensure that there's transparency of the use policies and that you understand the civil rights implications and can make more informed decisions about which ones to move forward with and which ones to stop.

Over the course of the last year, it has become abundantly clear that Flock ALPR system that tracks the movement of San Diegans is not safe for use, and we recommend that you reject their use policy and report today.

It has been beyond the ability of the city of San Diego to properly control the Flock ALPR system.

We know of at least one major data breach that resulted in thousands of instances of illegal data sharing in this city.

The implications of data sharing cannot be overstated right now.

We are currently witnessing the brutal attack of our constitutional rights by the Trump administration.

Approving this technology means that you will be complicit in the abductions and disappearances of San Diegans by immigration enforcement.

Let's just be clear about that.

Nationwide, we are hearing new means news reports every day from around the country that of Flock's irresponsible sharing of data.

They're creating these backdoor access for customs and border protections, that there's side doors that allow local immigration local departments like Alcajon to share data about San Diegans directly with immigration enforcement.

Even in cities like Evanston, where they ordered the cameras to be removed, Flock reinstalled them without the permission of city officials.

Cities around the country are choosing to end their relationship with Flock, and it's time for San Diego to do the same.

Last week, a couple a couple of weeks ago, you all said unanimously that you didn't want data sharing when it happened with important vulnerable characteristics.

And in order to actually do that, you need to end your FLOC relationship.

Local leadership, including the San Diego and Labor Counties, Labor Council, and the San Diego Democratic Party all agree that we must end the use of Flock to protect our communities.

There are many other options to keep us safe.

And if you all believe that ALPR has value, there are many vendors that you can go to, but Flock is not it.

Please reject the policy today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patricia, and you have been seated time by Aaron.

So I will place three minutes on the clock.

We have one more.

And you have one more?

Yeah.

And Chris, thank you.

So I will put four and a half minutes on the clock.

Oh, okay.

I thought it was three.

Um, Patricia Mondrayon, regional policy manager for Alliance San Diego and Alliance San Diego is also a member of the Trust ST coalition.

Trust in local law enforcement and government is breaking down because of the rise in aggressive federal actions, targeting people for exercising their basic rights to protest, to speak freely, to seek reproductive or gender-affirming health care, and even just for being perceived as an immigrant.

We've seen what happens when institutions collect massive amounts of personal data.

It gets breached, it gets shared or misused without consent.

This erosion of privacy has real consequences.

People are afraid to share their information, afraid to move about freely, and even afraid to seek help from their own government.

We hear this all the time that people are afraid to go to the county or city administration buildings for services.

In August of this year, Illinois conducted an audit after police in Texas illegally accessed Illinois' Flock ALPR data to track down a woman seeking reproductive care.

That audit found that Flock lacked proper safeguards for data sharing.

Additionally, the audit found that Flock's own leadership was unaware of a pilot program with U.S.

customs and border protection, which is a direct violation of Illinois law.

As a result, cities across Illinois ended their contracts with Flock.

Here in San Diego, the police department share license plate reader data with several outside agencies, including ICE and Border Patrol.

That has been widely reported in the news.

Flock has already been caught lying about sharing data with federal agencies for immigration enforcement.

This is not a system that we can trust and not a risk our city should be taken.

Ending the Flock ALPR contract is more than a policy decision.

It's a statement that San Diego values privacy, dignity, and public trust.

It's a step towards rebuilding faith in local government and protecting our communities from being watched, tracked, or targeted.

And at a time when we need every dollar for housing, health care, and community service, ending the contract with Flock will also save the city nearly $2 million that be can be reinvested where it truly matters.

Last week's election showed us the people are ready for more than business as usual.

They're demanding meaningful change.

Last week also, the privacy advisory board recommended that the city cease using this technology until safeguards are in place.

SDPD did not include that in their presentation.

We urge you to be part of that change and end the flock contract and reject this use policy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jesse Schmidty.

You will be followed by Jared Wilson, Karen V, Bill Gangley, and Lori Saldania.

If those individuals can please make their way to the front of the room, and Mr.

Schmidty will have a minute and a half.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Jesse Schmidty, District 8 Commissioner for the Commission on Gang Prevention and Intervention.

I felt obligated to speak to the deep disconnect today between what true community safety and transparency looks like first what's being sold to us through surveillance technology such as AOPRs.

Automatic license plate readers aren't about community safety.

They're about mass data collection.

The data doesn't stay in our neighborhoods.

It is shared, sold, and stored by private companies that make millions off of our personal information with little transparency and zero accountability.

As a commissioner focused on restoring trust and transparency between community and law enforcement, my interest is in trust and legitimacy in communities.

When a system misidentifies plates or misattributes identity, and the data is shared broadly, that trust evaporates, especially in neighborhoods who have historically, historically been at the forefront of surveillance.

In communities like mine and ours, trust in public safety institutions is already fragile.

Continuing a surveillance network run by a for-profit company only widens that divide.

Let's be clear.

Safety comes from investment, not surveillance, from jobs, housing opportunities, and policies that actually protect our community members, not contracts that turn our license plate into profit streams.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jared Wilson, you have been seated time by Umberto.

Zumberto still here.

Oh, thank you.

All right, three minutes, please begin.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

I'm Lieutenant Jared Wilson.

I'm speaking today as the president on behalf of the 1800 members of the San Diego Police Officers Association.

Automated license plate readers have become a cornerstone of modern policing in San Diego.

They're not used for surveillance.

They're used to locate vehicles tied to violent crimes, kidnappings, missing persons, and other critical incidents in our city.

In 2024 alone, ALPRs helped lead to the arrest of over 200 suspects, assisted in a third of all of our homicide cases, and recovered more than three million dollars and stolen property.

These results represent lives protected and cases solved faster without casting a wider net on the public.

Equally important are the safeguards that are in place.

ALPR data is encrypted.

Access is limited to trained, authorized personnel, and every search must include a valid case number, verified through weekly and quarterly audits.

Following guidance for the Privacy Advisory Board, SDP ended all data sharing with federal and out-of-state agencies and strengthening auditing and reporting practices.

These reforms ensured that this system operates transparently, responsibly, and consistent with California law and the city's trust ordinance.

ALPRs are helping us solve serious crimes while respecting the privacy of San Diegans.

We ask for your continued support for this tool that makes the city safer for both the public and our workers who are out there protecting people every single day.

And thank you to the team who's worked very hard on this and the city staff who's all worked very, very hard on this, that's actually out there making a real difference for justice in our communities.

Thank you and have a great day.

Thank you.

Karen Banks, thank you.

I have a minute and a half.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um I would like to say that these ALPR readers give us safety and security, but at what cost?

The gentleman before me talked about we are not under surveillance, but really we are.

You have 500 of these ALPR readers, and every time a citizen crosses that intersection, their photo and I um particulars of that vehicle is going to be taken.

And if they put in somebody's um driver's license um plate number, they can see over the last 30 days, for example, the habits of that person's life.

So please tell me that that is not a surveillance.

Also, I also read about the issue with Evanston, Illinois, where it was the Flock Company that allowed the um Board of Patrol to access the data.

They didn't go to the city.

They backdoored it and um allowed the Board of Patrol, Flocked to access that data.

Flock is not um foolproof.

I don't know how much time I have.

Flock is not foolproof, it makes mistakes.

There's an article, a study found Syracuse's new license plate readers make frequent mistakes.

There was a study done by the uh security and surveillance firm called IPVM that showed that it made mistakes on vehicle characteristics and misread um the make of the car.

There's been instances of officers.

Oh, anyway, I have more, but thank you.

Thank you.

You can submit further comment to council committee at Sandiego.gov, and we can post your comment.

Our next speaker is Bill Ganley, and then you will be followed by Lori Saldania.

Thank you, Chairman Von Wilport and the uh members of the committee.

I am the community security director for the Jewish Federation of San Diego, and I wanted to speak in support of this continuing uh resolution authorizing this use of the surveillance systems.

And I just wanted to mention uh two quick incidents that I I know personally that I can say what how they helped people who were victims of uh violent crime, and I just want to talk about the murder of a Jewish dentist in El Cahon, Dr.

Benjamin Haruni, may his memory be a blessing, and two other people who were shot that day.

Uh surveillance cameras, ALPR caught that in El Cahone that was broadcast to the through the media.

And it this doctor was a resident of San Diego, and another resident of San Diego spotted that vehicle, and the person was arrested within hours of this violent crime.

And I think I just wanted to mention how important that is to the community.

It helps bring down the temperature when these things happen.

So I just wanted to say that the ALPR systems, while this we're talking about the 500 cameras here for the city, there are plenty of ALPR systems around the city of private organizations as well.

Um but this is this system is specifically to capture people who have committed violent crimes, or all the examples we heard from the from the LT.

So I want to say thank you very much, and I hope you continue with this uh the system.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lori Saldania, and you will be followed by Nancy Relliford, Matt Greco, Jesus Martin, and Shaheed Prince.

If these individuals can make their way to the front of the room, and Ms.

Saldaniel, you'll have a minute and a half.

Uh thank you.

Just a few points.

Uh, there is a privacy advisory board that has been tasked with advising you all on these issues, and I hope that at the next hearing before the full council that you will look at their memo.

They actually did take action just this past week, and they issued a memorandum that I think is instructive and really should have been included with today's information.

Related to that, there is a judge's ruling today that flock automated information is in fact public, publicly available or should be publicly available information.

The status that state is now is saying that it is not available to the public while an investigation is ongoing.

I encourage you to take a look at the Washington ruling, Washington state ruling on that issue.

Um, and then I want to bring reference to the fact that the San Diego County Democratic Party did pass a resolution prioritizing community investments over expansion of surveillance.

That is something that is taken up at the state level as well.

We recognize the need to bounce safety with other programs that support our our community parks that support programs that prevent crimes.

And if we are investing in surveillance, especially surveillance is under tight control and is kept from people that could make good use of it, that is not reaching those those goals.

So please listen to what the privacy advisory board has to say.

Take a look and consider what the county democratic party has to say on this, and then take a look at Washington State and what the judge up there has ruled.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nancy Rutherford.

You will have a minute and a half.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Nancy Rellaford.

I am a resident of District 3, and I'm with Surge and the Trust Coalition.

I respectfully ask that you get Flock out of our city.

And as a start, please reject the proposed ALPR policies and the continuance of FLOC ALPR.

Um, as noted, the privacy advisory board did unanimously recommend ceasing the use of Flock ALPR.

Um, and I urge this committee and council as a whole to cease the use of FLOC ALPR while researching the currently available information and data about uh federal and ICE access to and use of ALPR data, FLOC's collusion in that access and abuse, FLOC's pattern of deceptive and unethical business practices, and in light of all available information now to reject Flock safety as an unreliable and undesirable partner whose practices and failure to protect San Diegans personal data harms the public and puts the city's reputation at risk.

Please do not be complicit in these practices.

Um we've noted or we've all seen that policies and laws do not stop San Diego police or flock from bypassing those guidelines and those guardrails and um with or without knowledge doing whatever they want.

You may know that um far from precision policing, 99 plus percent of data collected and stored by Flock Safety are never related to any search or crime, yet they are stored and available for searching and leaking without a warrant.

This is the opposite of precise.

Thank you.

Thank you for your concluding remark.

Matt Greco.

Good afternoon.

My name is Matthew Greco.

I'm a deputy district attorney.

I'm here on behalf of the district attorney's office.

I am the assistant chief of our general felony trial uh division downtown.

And I am here to voice uh our support for the continuing uh and maintenance of uh the license plate readers and the uh street cameras.

The most compelling argument that I can make in favor of uh the ALPRs and the the uh technology is that it is being used every day to solve and prevent crime, bring closure to victims, and protect the innocent.

Yes, protect the innocent.

This technology is being used to protect the vulnerable, including the unhoused.

At the intersection of West Point Loma Boulevard and Nimitz in District 2, while driving, uh, a defendant grabbed the hair of a 64-year-old unhoused man and dragged him under a van.

He broke the victim's legs, hospitalizing him.

The victim could not describe who attacked him.

However, a street camera captured the entire cruel attack, and the LPR identified the vehicle, which was quickly located with the defendant inside.

After a trial, he was sentenced to six years in prison two weeks ago.

This technology also protects the innocent.

One of the very first I will be here to answer any other questions if you are interested in how the district attorney's office is using the technology.

Thank you for your concluding remark.

Our next speaker is Jesus Martin.

You will have a minute and a half.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jesus Martín Gallegos Munoz, community organizing coordinator at the Chicano Federation, Commissioner for the City's Youth Commission, and resident of District 8.

I respectfully ask that you cease contracting with FLOC and verify that they delete all of our data.

Similarly, I ask that you reject the new proposed ALPR policies, which fail to keep our communities of concern safe.

Blatantly put, Flock is not a trustworthy company.

It has dissipated policies nationwide, directly affecting the safety and security of thousands of residents.

The experts you appointed to the privacy advisory board found a lot of problems with Flock and recommended the cease and use of Flock ALPR cameras.

I understand that this technology is intended to keep our community safe, but time and time again, it has proved to be not only an invasion of privacy, but also a tool to persecute our community members.

As a resident of the city of San Diego, the use of these technologies and the city's contracting with Flock do not make me feel safe.

On behalf of the Chicano Federation, I urge you to cease contracts with Flock.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Said Price.

You will be followed by Keelan Price, Michelle Woodson, and Leila Aziz.

If these individuals can please make their way to the front of the room.

And Sahid, you will have a minute and a half.

Hello.

I'm speaking for the 78,000 black people in the Sandy in the city of San Diego who are future victims of this technology.

Why do we continue to give the pigs any more technology to continue to harass and violate our rights?

The rights of 78,000 black people.

This driving down the streets, stalking our community members, snatching men, women, kids, and babies out of cars.

So why waste more resources and technology to these racist pig skins that they will use to abuse and criminalize us?

Flock surveillance cameras have been shown to endanger communities across the country.

They expand racial profiling, increase unnecessary police encounters, and strip away our privacy.

We demand an end to this harmful surveillance.

Stop using flock and counsel this contract now.

And lastly, Marnie, your partner is a cop.

Isn't it a conflict of interest for you to be up here on the committee anyway?

And also, this is not a game-changing uh technology either.

To you either.

This is not game changing.

To y'all, this is not game changing in his contract now.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kiana Price.

Hello.

I stand before you to express my deep concern regarding the proposed expansion of police access to flock license plate readers.

These tools are not about safety, they're about surveillance and control, particularly over black and brown communities.

Our police forces have a history of mistrust.

The police consistently, consistently and continuously abuse their power.

They are not to be trusted.

These sim systems will only further criminalize and oppress marginalized communities, perpetuating a cycle of injustice.

I urge you to reject the continued use of flock.

Don't let our city be a place where technology is used to invade and target the people who are already over police.

Flock is a technology that is hurting people across the country.

Stop using flocked.

And lastly, I would like to end with the quote from Asada Shakir that states we threaten our own rights when we condone by our silence the government government's use of surveillance attacks on the legitimacy of political activists and the use of the criminal law to suppress and punish political dissent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Michelle Woodson, you will have a minute and a half.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michelle Woodson, and I'm the legal director of Pillars of the Community.

I want to start by turning around and asking the folks here to please stand if you trust or feel safe around the police.

Nobody stood.

Some folks raised their hand, and mostly the police themselves.

I'd like to make note that none of the black or brown community members sitting at the back of the room stood.

I'd like to make note that the community members here are acutely aware of one thing that it doesn't matter what policies, procedures, or oversight are in place, that the police will continue to abuse their power against our community members.

The police were sharing stories of the few instances in which ALPR was successful in solving a case, yet they refuse to talk about the thousands and thousands of community members that they pull over every day and violate their rights.

We have a community member who's sitting here today that at the age of 19 was stopped by the police over 50 times.

Not once was he arrested or cited, just continually harassed.

And that's what the police do in our communities.

So I think what we're trying to say here is that you as uh committee members have the obligation to all of the residents of San Diego.

And it is clear that our community members do not trust the police with this technology or any other technology.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Layla Aziz.

Is Leila in the room?

Okay, we can come back to her giving her a final opportunity.

Isabel Kaye, if you can please approach the lecture, and you will be followed by Ricky Weaver, Ben Nichols, and CJ.

If these individuals can please make their way to the front of the room, and Ms.

Kay, you'll have a minute and a half.

Thank you.

Um my name's Isabel Kay.

I reside in District One, a place where there are not very many flock ALPRs.

Um I wonder why that is.

Anyway, nevertheless, I'm concerned about the implications and the actual effects of these cameras being deployed.

First of all, the specific vendor and manager of the data that are required, flock safety systems has proven not to be trustworthy, as you've heard, and has close ties to investors with declared racist philosophies to control the population with technology and to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population.

The oversight is missing that is necessary to ensure that observed abuses of the system by officers do not occur or the data are not shared with other agencies, and clearly now the data can be shared with anybody who asks.

In fact, I was horrified to hear how much time was spent by police officers.

Interacting with the license plate data and not with the community itself.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ricky Weaver.

Is Ricky still present?

Ben Nichols.

Hello, my name is Benjamin Nichols, and I'm the executive director of the Hillcrist Business Association, and I'm here today representing our 1800 small businesses and property owners.

We support the maintenance and expansion of this technology in Uptown as a vital tool for improve improving public safety in our neighborhood.

Over the last few years, Hillcrest has experienced a troubling rise in incidences that threaten our sense of security.

This includes pellet gun attack that targeted community members in line at a nightclub and the appearance of hate-filled graffiti throughout the neighborhood.

These crimes deliberately targeted our LGBT nightlife and cultural district.

The cameras were a proactive step, quickly deployed ahead of the pride season that has been critical in catching the offenders of these crimes.

The offenders who painted swastikas over our welcome to Hillcrest rainbow signs were caught, prosecuted, and paid restitution to the community.

This technology isn't about surveillance.

It's about our sense of safety and our for our customers and projecting a message to those who are committing crimes in our neighborhoods that you will be caught.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is CJ.

Good afternoon.

I'm Dr.

CJ Vallisak from the Center on Policy Initiatives, and I'm here to urge the city to end the ALPR program with Flock.

Cities like Austin, Texas, and Sedona, Arizona, among a dozen or so other cities have already cut ties with FLOC.

And San Diego should do the same.

These systems don't make a safer academic research and meta-analyses, which I can share with you, show no connection between ALPR and lower violent crime.

But plenty of evidence that they expand surveillance in working class immigrant black and brown neighborhoods.

There's also been uh independent research done by a nonprofit that showed in a randomized control trial that 37% of sampled uh data hits from stationary ALPRs and 35% from mobile units were misread.

So this isn't even accurate data a lot of the time.

Uh here in San Diego, immigrant and refugee working families that we work with are among those most harmed.

People are, they told us that people are afraid to drive to work, take their kids to school, or attend protests, all because they know their movements are being tracked and stored in these databases that can be accessed.

These families already live under constant scrutiny, and ALPR makes that fear worse.

The program has already broken the law by sharing data with federal and out of state agencies, uh hiding a year-long data breach and giving outside police access to our streets without our consent.

Meanwhile, as our communities struggle for housing, libraries, and parks, the program has cost us millions of dollars.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ayan.

Is Ayan in the room?

And then we have Ian.

Oh, excuse me.

Ayan?

Gee.

And Ayan, you will be followed by Ian, Janica, and Paola.

Hello, uh, good afternoon to everyone.

My name is Ian Ceruelo.

I am uh with the Asia Pacific American Labor Alliance, Apala, and also I'm the chair of the San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium as the ARC.

I am here to register our serious concerns and opposition to FLAC technology and the continued use of and the deployment of automatic license readers in our communities, and to ask you to reject the new ALPR policies as well.

Cities across the country, including us in Texas, Denver, Colorado, Oak Park, Illinois, Sedona, Arizona, and others have voted to reject FLAC.

It is time.

It is time for San Diego to do the same.

The mass surveillance system has been used against San Diegans, especially as a tool of Trump's mass deportation uh operation.

This technology is an instrument that abducted community members and us divided families.

As an immigration attorney who represents numerous San Diegans detained uh by ICE at the Ottawa Detention Center.

I am witness to the human cost to the human impact of this of this uh uh technology every day, with various reports of the use and abuse of data gathered through the service the surveillance system.

This has resulted to the further erosion of trust of our communities to law enforcement in the local government.

We ask everyone to reject FLOC and ALPR technology.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Janika Faulkner, and you have been seated time by itself.

So I will place three minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Janica uh Alliance in Diego.

Flock is a predatory company that has already lied to Colorado government officials having about having a pilot program with customs and border patrol, giving them direct data-based access.

Journalists are the ones that had to discover the truth and make that known to the community.

The police in Texas performing a death investigation of a non viable fetus use flock to run a nationwide search for a woman who self-administered an abortion and they discussed prosecuting the woman.

Flock lied and claimed it was a missing person investigation.

The city of San Diego has already demonstrated it cannot properly control the flock system, which resulted in a data breach of our data in January 2024.

No one has yet to be held liable for the data breach.

Your approval of this technology will mean that you are complicit in the abductions Flock will continuously of Flock using continuously using.

There is no way, no real way to protect our data from getting in the hands of federal immigration enforcement with Flock.

The experts you appointed to the privacy advisory board found a lot of problems with Flock and recommended that Flock use should be ceased.

Stop collecting our data immediately and take down Flock ALPR cameras in the City of San Diego.

And I do want to make an extra comment and tell you that Officer Zarati of La Mesa PD himself told me that they use our cameras, the City of San Diego's Flock cameras to track San Diego citizens.

So maybe you want to look into that.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Paula.

Good afternoon.

Mothers against drunk driving.

Matt strongly urges you to continue supporting the San Diego police department use of ALPR technology.

Every day, law enforcement officers work to stop impair and reckless drivers before they take another life.

Mothers Against Run Driving understands that San Diego L ALPR program has strong privacy safeguards in place and is focused on saving life and not invading privacy.

We ask the committee to stand with the victims and families who depend on swift effective enforcement.

Please keep ALPR technology active in San Diego.

It's proven life-saving.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And a final call for Ricky Weaver.

Ion Supreme.

And Layla Aziz, I see has joined us online.

So that concludes testimony here in chambers.

I will begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment.

We will begin testimony with Terry Ann Skelly.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half to speak to item number three.

Terry Ann Skelly, I have given you permission to speak.

If you can please unmute and begin.

Lori, please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

Good afternoon.

My name is Laurie Johnson.

I am a city of San Diego resident, District 3, and urge you to recommend that the city shut down ALPR systems and cancel the contract with Flock.

Use the money to fund community needs instead.

I applaud the privacy privacy advisory board's unanimous vote to cease Flock's automated license plate reader technology.

I would like to reiterate a few reasons why we need to cancel Flock's ALPRs.

They are a threat to everyone's rights.

This mass surveillance violates every person's right to privacy and liberty under the Constitution.

It restricts our freedom to visit places of worship, protest, and medical appointments.

It's been so disgusting, disheartening, and downright horrible to watch our brown neighbors treated like dogs and thrown into custody without due process.

They are being hunted down using ALPRs.

Many are afraid to go to work, seek medical attention, or allow their children to go to school.

Do you want our city allowing this to happen using FLOC's ALPRs?

Finally, allowing the continued use of ALPRs by San Diego police would permanently damage our community's trust in the police in the city and in the possibility of transparency and community oversight over mass surveillance.

SDPD has not complied with either the letter of the spirit of the city surveillance oversight ordinance or state law.

We know Flock is giving information to the feds.

There's no denying it.

Don't even try.

Please suggest to our city council to shut it down.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Peggy Walker.

Peggy Walker, please unmute and begin.

Yes, hello, and thank you.

Um, as a resident, technology that's aided successfully, as I read.

In 600 investigations, 420 arrests, recovery of 5.8 million in stolen property, including 440 stolen vehicles, and a 20% dropped in auto theft gets my full support.

I urge you to allow continued use of the ALPR technology.

I like that there's clear transparency with these cameras mounted on street lights across the city with all locations publicly posted on the city's website.

I also like that the information is retained only 30 days, unless it becomes part of an active investigation, a period lower than most large cities that reportedly keep ALPR data for years.

That protects privacy.

City residents deserve appropriate law enforcement.

Please keep this technology.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kathleen Lippett.

Please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee.

I'm a staunch supporter of good policing efforts because no civil society can function unless community standards, norms, and the law are respected.

Police are human beings, and as such, share the same weaknesses as all humans.

Police never should be smeared with generalizations that paint them as untrustworthy or ad hominem attacks like pigs.

10% of any population of individuals have human weaknesses.

But hyperbolic hominim ad hominem attacks on police officers are patently unfair.

Police officers risk their lives every day and deserve every tool to facilitate their ability to protect residents from crime.

For many years, police were targeted for public appropriate, accompanied by some even recommending that police be eliminated altogether and replaced with social workers.

Domestic violence calls are some of the most dangerous calls police have to respond.

Replacing them with social workers would be insanely risky and irresponsible.

However, it should come as no surprise that the treadmill of politicized euphemisms that have been fed to the public have caused it to become increasingly skeptical.

Titles like the trust ordinance, then instead of instilling trust and support, may instead engender red flags.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tanner.

Tanner, please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

The recommendation to cease use of flock is not a rejection of public safety, but defense of constitutional principles essential to all San Diego's.

The police government's claims benefits do not justify deploying it for pervasive surveillance technology that really repeatedly crosses legal and ethical boundaries.

First, flock operates on unconstitutional driving net, violating the fourth amendments or portionality by tracking people's movements without warrants.

Ruled is searched by the Supreme Court and Carpenter versus United States in 2018.

Second, San Diego system has reportedly violated state law and local ordinance violating routine, uh including routine data sharing with federal agencies in violation of SB34, enabling over 12,000 unauthorized searches.

Third, these are to expose millions of innocent residents and visitors to ongoing tracking, revealing private movements and associations, regardless of suspicions or warrants.

Finally, flock infrastructure is vulnerable to abuse, as I'll show you by document cases of bushtaw officers stalking using flock data in 2022.

Uh holding the law requires rejecting certain systems that they road public trust.

Ceasing use of flock defends both safety and civil liberties.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five minute timer has concluded.

We have 14 hands remaining in the virtual queue, and we will take no other callers beyond these remaining 14 hands raised.

Circling back to Terry Ann Skelly, giving you another opportunity to speak.

Terry Ann Skelly, please unmute and begin.

Terry Ann Skelly.

All right, we will come back to you at the end of the meeting.

Layla Aziz, please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

Hello, this is Layla Aziz.

Sorry I had to leave.

Today, what you're witnessing, as you've always seen us come here with respectability.

Today, what you're witnessing is a young father who the police pulled over, and they buried his complaint of racism, discrimination, and being lacked and having lack of courtesy, both category one and two complaints into miscellaneous.

They then retaliated against him and inappropriately touched his 15-year-old daughter on her breast and genitals.

So I apologize if you don't like the word pig, because he's very upset.

And that's the reason.

Right now, the police department is incorrectly categorizing all complaints, meaning any flock abuse will never have transparency.

You've gutted the CPP.

You've enabled the police department to not have to show transparency of any shape, form, or facet.

Those are the issues we're having.

And now you're sitting here giving the same people more control and more surveillance.

We are afraid for the last year with this new chief.

We've been harmed.

We have a 17-year-old who was murdered, who was not armed, running from a gunshot, and the officer killed him.

We have another young man who was eaten by canine dogs.

We want to know what's going on with the complaints, what's going on with police oversight.

How can you have gutted that public safety in livable neighborhoods?

And then you want to bring flock on top of that.

The harm and the mistrust.

Thank you.

This has concluded your time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Zoom user.

Zoom user, please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

Thanks for taking my call.

Man, it's hard to not react to all the guys talking, man.

I'm sorry a lot about for the black community.

Doesn't trust the police.

So just it seemed like wow, man.

And um it's kind of sad.

But uh one thing with black guys, I guess some of the older ones, the younger ones, whatever been we've been doing hasn't been working, obviously, if they end up like that.

So uh Chris Rock has got the comedian, the black comedian.

He has a great uh thing on YouTube about how not to get your ass kicked by the police.

It's Chris Rock.

He does a whole thing on how not to get your ass kicked by the police.

So maybe young black people, like five and six-year-olds, eight years old, get them early, and let them watch those videos, man.

It could change their lives.

It's probably a little late for that older guy that was really pissed off at the cops.

He's probably I don't know if he's gonna end up in a good spot, but it's probably not too late, or it could be too late for him.

But anyway, I say do more cameras and uh more police, give the cops a raise, 20 bucks more an hour or something like that would work for me.

So we need more cameras, and they're not gonna whatever they're gonna do with it, that's what they're gonna do with it.

But thanks a lot for your time.

Our next caller is David Darman.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

You hear me okay?

We can hear you.

Please proceed.

The potential for errors and abuse via ALPRs can adversely affect minority communities, low-income individuals, creating even greater bias and policing.

This practice can be seen locally as San Diego police continues to cruise barrelogan, profiling and harassing people of color present there.

ALPR is prone to errors, misreading the license plate, stops, detention, even violent arrests.

The use of APR, ALPR, another tool permit the continued malfeasant inherent laziness and cowardice of the San Diego police department officers.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Francine Maxwell.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

Good afternoon, Francine Maxwell, Southeastern San Diego resident.

I am impressed with the um vote from the privacy advisory board, and they've given us other product choices.

So I'm hoping that the fault does not get an extension, but they get a pause.

I'm also concerned that on the San Diego Foundation and within this presentation.

You talked about the Oakland NAACP.

San Diego has it in ACP that sits with the chief of police on their black advisory.

San Diego has an NAACP that meets quite frequently, I'm sure, with the mayor and other captains.

But you did not quote the San Diego NAACP.

You quoted Oakland.

So that right there doesn't boast well when we're trying to build trust and build bridges in the city of San Diego.

If the NAACP is sitting with the chief of police, getting told all kinds of things, then why didn't you bring them in your presentation?

Why aren't they here speaking about the extension?

So again, you continue to go and get safe people to sit in the room with you instead of creating a safe place so that safe conversations can occur and we can begin to move forward.

Everybody wants to be safe.

Everybody wants police department to make it home safely.

But when you're dishonest and you pull shenanigans by bringing in Oakland, that's where you don't get to build trust with the decades of proof that we have of other things.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

All right, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Thanks for the words of Francine Maxwell.

Uh, interestingly, I was going to talk about the city of Oakland.

The Oakland NAACP is actually a very conservative uh unit and uh organization.

Um, I don't know how that connects with San Diego NAACP.

In Oakland right now, on November 18th, is a upcoming Tuesday, they're gonna have a serious committee meeting on the future of Flock use in Oakland.

So the N the Oakland NAACP is on one side with you know communities supporting, you know, uh uh the public safety practices we that are very much respected uh by people.

And then on the other side, there's a serious conversation developing that flock doesn't have to be the answer all to our to our prayers.

That we can be looking for other uh um you know organizations, uh corporations that can coordinate uh AOPR use for the future of San Diego.

It doesn't just have to be Flock.

And I hope we're ready for those for this upcoming Oakland meeting and how to address the future of San Diego in the next six months or so.

Uh choices.

How can we have better choices about the future of Flock?

There are other technology companies available that can handle ALPR stuff.

Um, we also need to be considering that we we can use less amounts of uh ALPR use and still have the same public safety coverage.

Uh let's work together on these things, guys.

Uh, something's really hopeful, I think, in working on best practices.

Good luck how we can do that.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Youth Will.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

Hello, counsel.

This is Liliana Soriano, director of policy at Youth Will and supporter of the Trust San Diego Coalition.

And speaking um to a post this item, the privacy advisory board, which are experts and people decked to public safety, have made their message clear to reject the use of ALPR technology.

People in this room seem to forget that even when crime is surveilled or recorded, that doesn't mean it's prevented.

People determined to commit harm will still find ways to do so, often more dangerously just to avoid being seen.

Increase surveillance doesn't stop violence.

It only pushes it further into the shadows.

Beyond the safety and privacy concerns raised by the community, I want to address the SDPD workers directly, especially new officers.

You should be concerned about the way this technology is currently being praised by the people that represent you right now, because the truth is that this technology won't protect your job, it will replace it.

Maybe only when that happens is when you will see that these systems you've trusted to give more power begin to replace you.

Um ALPRs do not create trust between the community and law enforcement.

They deepen the divide.

We have to ask ourselves who is really watching whom, who's this benefits.

Um, this technology represents a dystopian shift, the false sense of control.

Um, so that's public safety.

Um, please reject ALPR and choose people over surveillance and listen to your constituents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ansermio and Strata.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi there.

Can uh can you hear me?

We can hear you, please proceed.

My name is Ansad Mill J.

Costrada, AJ Strada.

I'm the political director for the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council.

I'll also here speaking on behalf of the San Diego Labor Council.

Like I understand that local law enforcement believes they found utility in this technology.

The crucial question, however, is whether that utility justifies the mass surveillance infrastructure being created for the federal government.

Ultimately, though, our concern is not with the San Diego Police Department, but with a lawless federal government.

A federal government has already told Californians it will defy governor newsom's recently signed D-Masking law designed to ensure that federal officers identify themselves.

Furthermore, the Trump administration's coziness with the multi-billion dollar companies that sell this kind of technology, specifically Flock, is terrifying.

It's terrifying because the Trump administration openly defies courts, Congress, and everything in between.

This will be a feast for those that are searching for retribution against people exercising their First Amendment protected activities, not to mention retroactive prosecution for things not criminalized yet.

And just for the record, this type of surveillance does not address the root causes of crime.

Surveillance is not a theory of sustainably preventing crime or keeping people stay uh safe.

Surveillance gets convictions.

But do convictions lower crime rates in our cities?

No.

We need to be putting the money into things that do.

Housing, libraries, public health, and behavioral health services.

I'm asking that this committee follows the privacy advisory boards recommendations that council order the use of all ALPR data cease until four key provisions are adopted.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Nancy Bem.

Nancy, please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

Hi, my name is Nancy.

I am with Sandy Group Family for Justice and a Trust Coalition.

Public safety is far more than catching bad guys.

Your responsibility as the public safety committee is also in the business of preventing cybercrime.

And this is a great opportunity here to prevent more crime by shutting down Flock.

Flock and SCPD already broke the law by sharing data with ICE.

We keep talking about doing audits, and SCPD is assuring us that they will conduct audits.

But where are the consequences?

There were no consequences when they broke the law.

It says it will follow federal court orders.

And again, somebody already mentioned this today, but Washington, Washington judge just ruled that Flock ALPR data is subject to public records requests.

Under this federal lawless federal administration, heck no.

This is not safe.

This is going to guarantee that we will yet again break our sanctuary status.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

We have five hands remaining.

Stacy, please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

Hi, uh, my name is Stacey Yuey, and um I live in District 3.

Um, I'm asking that you reject the new proposed ALPR policies and demand that Flack Flock delete our data.

Um the last time I called in city council was to ask for the Flock contract to be rejected.

Um the council ignored everyone and pretended that Flock couldn't possibly hand over our data without oversight.

And now we know that's demonstration demonstrably false.

Data was accessed through 12,960 separate search queries from outside agencies without authorization, including by CBP and ICE.

So, how many people have been harassed by SDPD or caught up in ICE detention because you already failed to keep them safe?

And what about the kidnapping and torture of our communities that Flock empowers?

No city or state policy can make Flock safe.

Even if our city policies were strict, Flock is obligated to comply with court orders and subpoenas from the federal government.

And there's really no way to protect our data from getting in the hands of federal immigration enforcement with Flock.

Please do your duty and protect your constituents this time.

You already failed to do so.

Thanks.

Thank you for your comment.

Patricia DeArman, please unmute and begin.

You will have a minute and a half.

Okay, hello everybody.

Patricia De Armin.

I'm the sister of Christopher D.

Armin.

I want to speak on ALPRs.

The surveillance of people without warrants or current and active crimes happening can lead to deadly outcomes without a reason as can be seen by my brother Christopher D Armin's killing by SCPD on January 20th, 2023.

My brother was surveilled for five to 10 minutes by SCPD in the neighborhood SCPD claim was up to no good and that they had arrested plenty of felons there before according to their biased police report which was the town of Barrio Logan.

SCPD used a broken third tail eye as an excuse to conduct a pretext stop and escalate the situation by violating his rights and insisting on yanking him out to see if he wasn't illegally transporting marijuana which is legal here in California and he had well under the legal amount to carry they also told him his word meant nothing his case depicts a danger of surveilling targeting racially profiling pretext stops discrimination excessive use of force and a clear abuse of power the surveillance of ex-falons despite their completion of prison time parole time and probation time and no longer being a fourth waiver is a problem that leads to illegal searches and seizures pretext stops gang stalking and hot stops.

When are ex felons free when does their word mean something when do they get their rights back?

Why does it seem that SCPD seems to continue finding reasons to violate our constitutional rights to privacy the answer to public safety is not proactive policing.

Stop targeting our concluding thank you for your comment our next speaker is phone number ending in 5908 phone number ending in 5908 you can press star six to unmute and beginning good afternoon chair and city representatives my name is Pedro Rios I'm director of the American Friend Service Committee's US Mexico Border Program.

We work with migrant communities throughout the city of San Diego I'm concerned that the city of San Diego would build a relationship with Flock a company that settles controversial surveillance technology for profit without accountable guardrails to protect our data.

More specifically my concern is about Flocks accumulation of sensitive data of people with precarious immigration statuses and that it could be accessed by other police and private entities that don't share the same values to protect the information as SDPD claims it upholds there are numerous reports of how Flock and other police agencies have shared data sets with immigration enforcement agencies in today's political context where federal agencies are purposefully exploiting weaknesses in systems that access private information it's an absolute fallacy to believe that I and CVP can't get a hold of sensitive data.

Every day on social media we see how these agencies trample on our constitutional rights without any accountability we cannot afford to give Flock and federal agencies an opportunity to use this information to our detriment the responsible action to do here is to reject Flock and the new ALPR policies thank you thank you.

Our next speaker is Rudy Asparta if you can please unmute and begin you will have a minute and a half Rudyus I have given you permission to speak if you can please unmute and begin yes hi sorry about that um hi my name is Alexey and I represent East European immigrant community here in District 6 in San Diego.

I mean we uh hear a lot of um uh people who's upset for whatever reason and I uh feel for them but the truth is uh ARP technology is um is a great technology it's not perfect not the least but I must plead with you do not stop using this essential technology it is one of the best ways to have keep our city safe and call law enforcement accountable I support our P because it's uh results for public safety and it's far outweighed its flaws when we discuss safety we must set political uh talking points aside our focus must be on the well-being of every San Diego and all one point what four million of us and every guest who visits the city which is another almost a million a year um I'll be I'll PR technology is an objective crime fighter that protects all of us especially those in vulnerable communities its function is purely mechanical making it inherently blind to race and political views uh the system is not only concerned with fighting the license plates linked to warrant or crime scene it does not see the driver caller the region of the political bumper sticker you know this guarantees an objective focus on public safety and health thank you this does conclude your time thank you for your comment thank you guys and the final speaker in the queue is to Natsoncina Sanchez if you can please unmute and begin you will have a minute and a half hello can you can you hear me now councilwoman we can hear you please proceed yes um thank you for that um I'm gonna give a shout out to that bigot that was talking earlier on the zoom and also like to acknowledge how counsel how come you didn't cut him off I know you guys are have a ability to cut him off like that and you just chose to let him sit there and grab

If you can please unmute and begin, you will have a minute and a half.

Hello, can you can you hear me now, Councilwoman?

We can hear you.

Please proceed.

Yes.

Thank you for that.

I'm gonna give a shout out to that bigot that was talking earlier on the Zoom.

And also like to acknowledge how council, how come you didn't cut him off?

I know you guys are have a ability to cut him off like that.

And you just chose to let him sit there and degrade our black brothers and sisters and communities and question people's parenting skills.

And that's beyond here nor there.

But typical for council member to do that.

To my brothers and sisters who are present in the room right now, Southeast San Diego takes care of ourselves.

We are here for the revolution, and we'll continue to lead all oppressed people to victory.

Block's goal is to expand to every city in the U.S.

and its cameras are already in use in over 2,000 cities and 42 states.

Their focus is building a giant network and making it available for all the law enforcement customers to have it at hand.

With every new contract, they extend their network, contributing to a centralized mass surveillance system.

The ALPR technology also has a negative impact on our environment.

As some of you may not know, Barrio Logan suffers from light pollution.

The lighting that is used to support these cameras on their street lights on the fixtures have a significant negative impacts on the environment and can also have negative impacts on wildlife.

In order for those cameras to capture clear images at night or in low light conditions, the illumination source is often required.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

And to any of the hands that have gone up after the five-minute timer has exhausted, you can submit written comment to council committee at Sandiego.gov and chair, this concludes public comment for item number three.

All right, thank you very much to everyone who commented today.

Thank you to the public for coming in.

Thank you to our staff and presenters.

You know, I too get very upset sometimes by the public comment I hear, and I don't agree with it either.

Uh, but it is a first amendment right in this country to be able to say things to this dais as long as you're not inciting violence.

And so we've heard not just today, but this council of the past five years has heard some pretty hateful things come over this, and we don't agree with it either.

But um, we're not allowed to cut off people because of the first amendment.

So I hopefully people can do better and not and not espouse hate.

That said, to the item at hand.

Um thank you for everyone's work on this.

Um, I also want to note for the public.

Um, we have the privacy advisory board uh chair and for my colleagues to ask if you have any questions about the privacy advisory board.

Chair is in the room with us today, too.

Thank you to the privacy advisory board.

They are volunteers.

Uh they are not paid, and I doubt we even uh pay for their parking, to be honest, uh, to do the work that they do to to really work through evaluating technologies and working with our police department.

Thank you as well for our departments for being so cooperative with folks.

I mean, I you can see in the backup materials to this item how many memos went back and forth between the PAV privacy advisory board and the police over the last year over this item in particular ALPRs, and not just this one, others too.

Um, you can see in the backup materials many other use policies that have been adapted by police at the recommendation of the privacy advisory board.

And so it truly is a collaborative relationship.

Um, there are two memos that the privacy advisory board wrote about um ALPRs on November 5th that are not included in the backup materials on on the agenda website, but they are online for the public to see on the privacy advisory board's website.

You can look at them right now and download them.

But I would ask that they put be loaded in the backup materials for the full council.

I know they just came out, so that everyone has one place to get them, but they are publicly available.

Um I want to thank the DA for coming down as well, as well as L members of the community um who've participated today.

Uh I have a a couple of questions, but the first thing I want to remind everybody who might be new to this technology is could you please put the screen the slide up on the screen?

Every single smart street light and automated license plate reader um is listed for the public to view on the city's website.

Uh you simply have to go to Google and put in CN Ego PD and Smart Streetlights or ALPRs in the first website that comes up.

This is an interactive map.

You can zoom in, zoom out, and see publicly where every single smart street light in APR is in the city.

Um it is completely transparent to know where these technologies are.

Which is good because in the prior administration, um the prior mayor actually put up Smart Street Lights and didn't tell anybody, and it was not the way we should be doing business.

So I think we've made a lot of progress over why these are important to use for the public.

Um that these are in public spaces.

And so is it still the case I want to confirm that if a street light is up and there happens to be an area the streetlight captures that is a private space, it will be blacked out on the camera.

Is that so correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um and there is no expectation of privacy in a public space.

For example, if we had police officers standing on every corner every day of the week, we do not have that staffing, but if we did, uh whatever a police officer sees in the public street in the public right-of-way, we would not have to ask them later if a crime were to be committed in front of them.

We would not go and get a warrant and ask the judge if we could ask the police officer what they saw in public.

And these smart street lights are very similar, and these AOPRs are very similar.

They're in the public right-of-way, and a judge would not grant a warrant because they are publicly available and publicly accessed.

Is that that's my understanding of the law as a lawyer and a former deputy city attorney, but I just want to confirm.

That is completely correct.

The issues of this is not a system that is so systemic pervasive or inescapable, like it would be for self-site location information or a vehicle tracker, something that is visible in the public space.

If this was contraband and seen by police officer in public space, there is no search under the Fourth Amendment.

Whenever something goes into a place where an expectation of privacy exists, say a pocket, then we're talking about warrants.

Public spaces are public spaces.

Correct.

And the license plates are on the outsides of vehicles, they are publicly accessible.

I want to confirm still, though, that no um there's no facial recognition in this technology.

Yes, there's no facial recognition.

Okay.

And um we the license plates are actually taken of the rear of the car, so they're not even going to the windshield.

Correct.

Okay.

Um so I have two lines of questioning I want to talk about.

One is continuing to make sure that we use Smart Streetlights and or sorry, ALPRs especially to prevent and solve crimes.

And the second case I want to talk about is how we are protecting this data from a federal government that has shown it wants to criminalize parts of our population and flout the law.

And I am very worried about that.

Data security is incredibly important to me.

But also making sure that the San Diegans that we are in charge of protecting are safe is also important to me.

And I've heard a lot from the public about people saying there are alternatives.

We don't need smart street lights to keep people safe.

And I'm sure that in some circumstances that is true.

But if you read through the annual report, which is published on the city's website and on this agenda, there are some instances in which crimes would not have been solved, or very likely would have been much harder to solve without the use of an ALPR.

On page 24 of the annual report, um, there's a list of incidences in which ARPR was used, and one of them was uh attempted kidnapping.

And we saw, and when people ask us doesn't prevent crime, we saw a man who repeatedly tried to snatch little girls off the street.

Not once, not twice.

He was gonna come back for a third time.

He got his hands on those girls too.

Their mothers wrestled him away.

And finally, through the use of a smart streetlight, they were able to get his car, pull him over and stop him from actually kidnapping a young girl.

Um that is listed in page 24 of the annual report.

On page 25, there's a description of another horrendous crime.

Uh between 150 a.m.

and 450 a.m.

on July 18, 2024, a female juvenile under 14 years old was sexually assaulted by an unknown suspect inside his vehicle at the College Grove Center parking lot.

Under 14.

The vehicle was described as an older Chevrolet Cruise sedan with a temporary tag display in the railwood shield.

A special projects and legislative affairs detective reviewed ALPR images to confirm that the suspect's vehicle had been present at the location during the time of the sexual assault, cooperating the victim's account and providing critical evidence for investigators.

On July 19, 2024, the suspect was arrested on multiple sexual assault charges involving a minor, and his vehicle was impounded as evidence.

He was later convicted and sentenced to five years in prison.

And there are attorneys in this room, many of us actually, who know if the only other evidence was the smart street light or the ALPR and it was gone, the only way you'd prove that sexual assault occurred was asking that 13-year-old girl to accuse her abuser in court.

The only way you'd prove that sexual assault occurred was asking that 13-year-old girl to accuse her abuser in court.

And it's a he said she said.

But because his car was caught in the area, and then we had corroborating evidence, it helps prosecute someone abusing little girls.

But they do.

I don't know what alternative we would use to prosecute that.

In addition, what was read into the record earlier today, and this is actually, I just I saw this on the SDPD uh Instagram last week.

In September 2025, assess and actually what our DA spoke about earlier.

A suspect was uh convicted and sentenced to six years in prison after he pulled over alongside a median waiting at a stoplight, reached his hand out of the van and grabbed a 64-year-old homeless man who was simply sitting there asking for change.

He grabbed him, hit the gas, and dragged him, and pulled him under the car and ran over his legs.

There was no witness coming forward to protect the 64-year-old man.

The only way that SDPD caught him was because he was caught in a smart streetlight.

He went to trial.

The man who grabbed the homeless man and ran him over and broke his legs, went to trial.

He said, You can't prove I did this.

I mean, it goes on and on and on.

Um, a bicyclist in March 2025 was struck it struck and killed by two vehicles who fled the scene.

Using the smart streetlight video cameras and ALPA data, the vehicles are located and the drivers are subsequently arrested for felony hit and run.

I just there are going to be crimes that are horrendous that will not be solved if we turn this off.

And that's just the reality.

And so my my duty, though, is also to unfortunately protect people from an unlawful actions by the federal government at the same time.

I've never thought I'd have to say that in my life.

Uh but California law rightly protects people from having SCPD being used for immigration purposes from reproductive choices purposes, all of that.

And we are seeing nationally that the federal government is not always gonna follow the law, which is a very scary place to be.

So I want to ask about the data security in these systems because if we turn these off, we are telling the public we are going to take a tool away from very important crime fighting.

Um I want to make sure they're used to the best uh make sure that we have the best security available and that flock is following the contract.

Um so my first question is uh in the revised uh use annual report, there was uh an identified internal audit that identified it right when these were installed in December of 2023 to early January 2024.

So this is before you know Trump was re-elected, this is before all of what's happening in the national scene now.

But it's still it said that a setting was installed allowing other California law enforcement agencies, so they were only within California, these were not federal, to search our flock system, and that had been corrected.

But how what I'm glad you reported it because it has to be in the annual report.

And can you assure that that was just California laws and streets?

That was not other federal agencies like ICE who got the data.

Yes, we can confirm it was just California law enforcement agencies that had access during that time.

Okay, and that has been since deactivated.

No other law enforcement agency can search our databases.

That is correct.

As soon as we realized that it was open that they were accessing it, we immediately contacted the vendor who shut it off.

Um it has not happened since.

Okay.

So how are we going to continue to do this work?

Because one of the issues that the privacy advisory board brought up in its report on why they want to see certain changes made to the use policy, is continual audits uh to make sure that this doesn't happen, or if it does happen, we catch it immediately and we are able to handle it.

So where are we writing?

I see in our annual report and our use policy that audits will be conducted.

It doesn't state though how often it will be conducted and how it will be made available to the public.

Right.

So um Privacy Advisory Board recommended that we conduct quarterly audits, which we agree to.

We we will write that in there so it does say we will do quarterly.

Currently, we are doing weekly audits, uh, just to stay on top of the system and make sure we don't fall behind.

Um, in addition to that, we are working with the vendor to strengthen the auditing process.

Um, and in that process, that is including case or incident numbers every time a search is conducted.

That's now a mandatory field.

Um, as mentioned before, and that is also nationwide standard practice.

Um, the vendor is also working on a drop-down menu that will categorize those cases.

So, as we said before, we can't release incident numbers, case numbers, because it could jeopardize investigations, but this drop-down menu will have things such as homicides, burglaries, kidnappings, so it'll give the public a general idea.

Um the other steps that we're taking with the vendor is those audits will be accessible so that the general public can go in there, they can look at the transparency page and pull those audits and see what's happening currently.

Um we've also posted our audit logs on the uh San Diego Police Department ALPR website.

So those are actually were posted earlier this week, and people can go look at those.

Okay.

We also wanted to make sure that we said that we also have city IT here to speak to the IT governance process, and FLOC has made themselves available to answer any questions you have.

Okay, thank you.

Um can you commit to putting in writing into the use policy that these audits will be done quarterly and where they will be posted so the public can see the logs?

Yes, yes, yes.

Okay.

Um thank you, because I know that was one of the questions from the privacy advisory board as well.

Um in terms of uh the uh only having the two requirements that I understand the privacy advisory board had requested that um the police department cannot accept, these are the only two.

Everything else has been accepted.

Is the request for a warrant to search publicly available data, which we already addressed, I would not support that either, and then the 14 day retention period.

So my worry about only reducing it to 14 days is that if a crime is not reported for three or four days, and then you have to go interview witnesses and find leads, it could take more than 14 days to prosecute some of these crimes.

I mean, there are many victims who do not come forward for a couple of days or even a week.

And so if we were to shorten below 30 days, would that compromise our ability to fight crime?

It would um absolutely jeopardize our ability to do these investigations.

Um reporting crimes, um, and that can be a matter of um their hesitant to come forward, or it could be um a delay in realizing that the crime had occurred.

As I mentioned, maybe they're out on vacation for a week and their house is burglarized.

So you can have a delay in actually identifying the crime and a delay in reporting it.

Um we also have other delays in gathering that information.

So maybe there's nothing to go off of, but detectives go out to the scene, they start conducting witness interviews, and they start to develop leads, suspect vehicles, stuff like that, or you get um warrant information back that kind of points us in the direction of a suspect vehicle.

And sometimes that can take a couple weeks.

Um I know I've worked with homicide on a couple cases, um, and we're right at that 30-day threshold when the data starts to drop off, and that's when they're starting to get more and more um information that would lead them, but they're starting to lose that already at 30 days.

So, yes, less than that would be an issue.

And also with series-related cases, uh, like the Sledgehammer series we saw where multiple San Diegans are victimized in their own homes, and again, you want to be safest in your own home, and having these cases that can stretch over months uh that creates a problematic uh situation for our investigators where old um older evidence is falling off.

And we we've we we've struck that balance at 30 days, and that's how we we don't want to go below that because of that danger to investigations in San Diego are being victimized over courses of time.

Okay.

I mean, I understand actually San Diego does have a shorter window than many other agencies.

Um, and the state standard is around 60 days, and so we are a shorter data retention period than many other agencies.

Um I have many questions actually.

So the next one um is about the data security from Flock.

So we own the data, so Flock has committed that they cannot sell the data, they cannot share it with third parties, uh, which is in our use policy, but it is on their servers outside of the city of San Diego.

And so I know that our own uh city IT folks did review this, and we have cybersecurity experts, and then so is anyone here from City IT who can come up and okay.

Uh yes, so Brendan, I know that you uh we know we get briefings from you every year in closed session on cybersecurity threats to the city of San Diego.

And so can you tell us, do you believe that the data security here is is enough to keep this from going to third parties unintentionally?

Yeah, um good afternoon.

Uh Brendan Daly, I'm chief information security officer with the Department of IT.

Uh so we reviewed Flock in accordance with administrative regulation 90.68, which is uh procurement of IT solutions in uh June of 2023.

And uh as part of that process, we go through IT governance and we review a lot of things about a technology before we will approve it, um, those being alignment with our IT standards and also our information security standards and guidelines.

And uh, we did approve Flock at that level.

But in addition, in addition to that, FLOC does maintain some well uh known industry certifications, uh, one being a SOC to SOC type two compliance, that's a systems and organization controls uh certification.

And really that focuses around a lot around privacy and um uses an independent auditor to uh ensure that information security controls are put into place in five general areas.

Um it's very well respected and known throughout the industry.

Additionally, they maintain ISO 2701, which is another uh extremely well known and respected international um standards uh for cybersecurity.

Um that has about 14 different control areas that they uh monitor and audit uh them on annually.

Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate it.

Um thank you for for working with PD to make sure that they are actually keeping the data safe at Flock as well.

Um I don't my colleagues may have other questions for you as well, but um thank you.

And I also want to know from FLOC.

So one of the things that the PAB did ask, um, and it's in not the first report from uh the PAB issued two memorandums on November 5th.

This is from the amended 2025 ALPR annual surveillance report, which is on their website.

Page two is asking to continue the use of ALPRs.

The following actions must be taken to comply with the trust ordinance.

And uh the PAB wants um and I'll let you introduce yourself for a second.

Sorry, one second.

The PAB has requested that the city obtain a written attestation from the vendor, FLOC Safety, that does three things.

A test that currently FLOC is and has complied with the ALP ALP ALPR use policy, B has not shared any SDPD ALPR data with any third party, and no third party has accessed SDPD ALPR data other than that already reported in the annual surveillance report.

And C, there have been no data breaches or unauthorized access of the data.

So can you introduce yourself as representative for Flock and can you provide this at a testation at a station in writing?

Thank you, Counselor.

I'm Trevor Chandler, I'm the director of public affairs for FLOC.

And that attestation has been signed by our chief legal officer Dan Haley and submitted to the SDPD.

Okay, can that be uploaded in the backup materials for the full council to see and given to PAB as well?

And my one question I do have for PAB is how often do they want FLOC to certify this?

Uh because it doesn't say in here, is it an annual certification?

Do they want monthly?

And how often should we get this added to attestation?

Yes, uh, Timothy Blood, uh chair of the PAB.

Um it should be done at least annually and more often would be great, but annually would be sufficient.

Okay, got it.

Thank you.

Um got it, and then periodically conduct routine risk management oversight of ALPR's Flock safety policies.

This includes review of audit reports generated by Flock Safety, such as SOC type two audit reports.

Is that something that we are doing already with our audits?

Yes.

Okay.

And you're gonna be putting that in writing in the policy going forward that we will have quarterly audits that will that will be publicly available.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and then now I have questions for FLOC.

And then I'll let my colleagues ask questions.

I'm says I thank you for indulging me in this very long question.

Uh so one concern that that we do have is the data is owned by the city, and uh by contractual obligation, uh FLOC is not allowed to sell this to third parties, it's not allowed to market it, it's not allowed to use it.

And by California law, Flock is not allowed to provide this data to federal agencies such as ICE, it's not allowed to provide it to out-of-state agencies, such as Texas, who is going to be coming I'm talking about SDPD data.

I have no idea what your contracts are with other cities and other states.

I'm asking about SDPD license plates.

By law, not allowed to provide this to ICE or other federal agencies.

So, how are you ensuring that the California law is complied with here in our city?

Absolutely.

So, what we have done uh up till recently is provided the tools for agencies to be compliant.

Uh, what we have heard directly from agencies, especially with leadership from SDPD, is that they want us to provide the compliance immediately and directly.

So, in that spirit, we have removed all access uh to outside of California, uh any access to California agencies.

So the toggle to go into a national lookup no longer exists.

And so we have removed that option to just maintain compliance with California law.

Okay, and how will we know if if the federal government were to break the law and breach into Flock system for our data in San Diego?

I cannot control what happens in other cities and other states.

How will we be alerted if the federal government were to break the law and access this data?

How will you let us know?

If we are served with a legal document for the city of San Diego's data, our contract obligates us to notify your legal entity and your legal legal agency that that has occurred so you as a city and your legal council can make a decision on how you want to respond to that.

So you as a city and your legal counsel can make a decision on how you want to respond to that.

That is legally ensconced in our contract.

Okay, and have you been served with any warrants by the federal government or any other state governments asking for San Diego ALPR data?

We have not.

So this the same applies if the state of Texas or Louisiana or any other state is attempting to access San Diegans data.

Correct.

We will we are we are contractually obligated to notify the city of San Diego for any legal requests for your data.

Okay.

Um I also want to, and the audits that are being performed that we just heard from Brendan from RIT security, that will be that will routinely disclose whether or not someone has breached your database.

Yes.

And so one of the things uh that differentiates Flock from many other public safety technologies is the level of transparency.

Sometimes that comes with uncomfortable moments where we see things that were not intended to happen happen.

But the reason that they are known is because of these transparency features, so we can go forth, fix and make sure that any community safety tools are being used according to community values.

Okay, and we're committing the weekly audits right now to make sure this doesn't happen.

I'm glad that when you did discover that Flock had allowed other state agencies to access our data, it was discovered and on it and published in our annual report and fixed.

And so that to me actually shows quite a degree of faith of this department that you did.

It's in here for the public to see that it was unauthorized by other California state law enforcement agencies.

You disclosed it and you fixed it.

Um had you not disclosed it and we found out about it later, I would have been very upset.

But and you're assuring us today that you have no known breaches of ICE getting access to San Diego data or Texas or any other state getting access to San Diego's ARPR data.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Is that correct for our police department?

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

I want to get that on the record.

Um, I have one last thing to share.

Uh, thank you to Circulate San Diego.

Um I'm sure my colleagues will have questions for you, but thank you to Circulate San Diego for putting in a letter of support for San Diego's automated license plate reader program as well because of all the incidences that have happened that um people who seriously injure pedestrians and bicyclists on the road and then flee.

I'm glad that our license plate readers were able to actually prosecute people who hit and run felony uh cases on our roads.

Um so I just want to thank circulate for bringing that forward.

And lastly, I wanted to ask our DA was interrupted at the end of the question about how ALPRs protect innocent people.

And I was curious to know what the conclusion of that sentence was.

Because we often think about this as convicting crimes, but how is it also protecting innocent folks?

Uh it protects it.

Use the mic, please.

Oh, sure.

Uh the uh ALPRs and uh street cameras actually one of the very first uses was uh it captured a uh uh a killing and in that particular uh uh it happened downtown uh by capturing uh the killing, there was actually a viable self-defense claim that no one would have believed, and no one did believe until we actually saw it with our own eyes.

The LPRs are uh actually protecting the innocent by preventing crime.

And uh you mentioned one sledgehammer series.

There's a second sledgehammer series that is ongoing that actually is central to the fifth district where there have been 25 businesses, some on multiple occasions being uh victimized late at night with a sledgehammer through uh the a uh uh the window and then uh grabbing uh money from inside, and these are very small mom and pop businesses.

Uh uh and some of the businesses, as I mentioned, have been uh hit twice.

Uh that case was solved because uh there was an active use of the uh ALPRs with a detective and a patrol officer, and it was ironically a different jurisdiction that was being accessed.

Uh, this individual who victimized 35 businesses in three different districts uh lived up in Hemet.

And so the uh flock cameras in Hemet had been accessed over this period of time, and they knew that this individual was coming from there.

Uh, as a series of crimes was occurring in San Diego on a particular night, the detective that had been investigating all of the cases uh was in communication with a single police officer in the university city area, and uh I indicated that this person was probably gonna be returning to Hemet after he had committed a series of three uh burglaries.

That officer went to the uh 52 because that was the quickest route to Hemet and sat and watched uh as vehicles and within 10 minutes saw that gray sedan uh come and uh unfortunately this force multiplier, the uh AL the license plate reader had helped them, but he was there was a physical deficit of officers, so he was just trailing waiting for officers to catch up to his position.

And uh that individual ended up spinning out on the freeway.

So even if you had taken the two million dollars from the ALPRs and you'd gotten rid of it, you would not have caught this person because those 20 officers that that money, you couldn't have actually staked out the number of businesses that he had hit on multiple occasions.

It's preventing crime.

Thank you very much.

Um I appreciate you for what you do.

Um where I am with all this technology, and this is not the only technology in this package, by the way.

There are many surveillance use reports that have been amended in this technology in this packet, which is on the public website.

I don't have questions about those.

I read them, they seem very straightforward.

Thank you for the PAB for making recommendations.

Thank you for accepting the PAV's recommendations.

Um it comes to the ALPR and Smart Street Light Technology.

We have been assured on the record many times here in this committee, uh, many in other committee at full council that ICE has never accessed in other state governments who are criminalizing women's reproductive choices, has not accessed our San Diego data.

And that would be a violation of state law.

That'd be a violation of this council and our morals.

I don't want that to happen.

If the federal government were to do that and break the law, and we have evidence that they are using this for unlawful purposes, can I get our assurances that we will turn these cameras off?

Yes.

Thank you.

And we have the ability to turn them off if we do find the federal government is breaking the law.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

Um my job is to make sure that people feel safe in our cities, and that is a complicated question for every single person.

Everyone answers it differently.

But I do know that people who are being struck and killed by video vehicles and hit and runs.

Multiple child molestation cases.

A homeless man who was viciously attacked and run over.

And how many homicides, how many murders, how many victims were at least four?

There were four cases that would not have been solved if it were not for this technology.

I have to balance the notion that we need to keep people safe from these horrific crimes and that these tools are helping against the theoretical threat of the federal government possibly violating the law and coming and taking these cameras.

Right now, if I have no evidence of the federal government using our San Diego data, I cannot speak to other cities.

I'm not willing to give up this tool to prevent and solve these crimes on the theoretical possibility that the federal government could break the law, violate the Constitution, and come in and take this data.

If that were to happen, I would be there calling for these to be shut off too.

And I'm glad I have your assurances that they would be.

Thank you.

Sorry, I'm the chair.

Uh, Councilmember Campio, please go ahead.

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that.

And I will second the motion.

I do have a few questions.

Uh first I want to express my appreciation to members of the public who came to council, took the time out of their day to sit, sit and listen and who've been participating throughout and and with their comments.

Uh I do want to uh there was one particular comment that caught my attention.

I do want to thank Assemblymember Saldani for pointing out the Washington state case that essentially yesterday or early the earlier today was reported that uh in Washington ALPR data is public data.

The court did rule that.

In 2015, our state legislature passed the automated license plate recognition act, civil code section 1798 that is an explicit statutory non-disclosure mandate for ALPR data.

Uh, and the California Supreme Court and ACLU Foundation v.

Superior Court in 2017 affirmed a lower trial court's um determination that ALPR records may be withheld under our PRA's catch all public interest exemption.

So I appreciate that uh that uh reference to another court case.

Um little bit of research shows that we have protections against that concern in California, uh, luckily.

Uh I do want to thank the chair for her questions.

I do want to thank SDPD and the PAB for their working together on this updated ALPR use policy.

Uh my view of this is the policy is a product of true partnership.

Police and community members and our oversight bodies sitting down together to make sure technology not only keeps people safe but also protects their rights.

This is what public trust looks like in action.

And I understand that not every detail earned unanimous agreement amongst all the individuals who are part of that conversation, but it followed the rigorous and transparent process that we put in place years ago.

That process worked and has provided us with what we have before us today.

And when technology is used the right way, it becomes what we call precision policing.

It focuses on the people that are actually committing crime and not pulling over and detaining and bothering people who are innocent and questioning them while they are just trying to go about their day.

ALPRs allow SDPD to look for the exact vehicle involved in a crime without stopping every similar car that they see.

It's smarter policing, it's less intrusion, it's more precise, and it's exactly what our residents expect from modern police departments like ours.

Some have called this technology a form of over surveillance.

I think it's exactly the contrary.

It's what allows us to avoid blanket searches that violate the Fourth Amendment.

It replaces unreasonable suspicion with exact specificity.

We are far less likely to violate the Fourth Amendment when we use this technology.

I'd also point out, I find this highly ironic that the vast majority of people who spoke on this proposal today did so holding an Apple, Samsung, or Google smartphone with cellular service.

You know who turns over your phone data to federal agencies?

Apple, Samsung, and Google, and you never know about it.

Same with Verizon, T Mobile, and Boost Mobile, and you never know about it.

Our local ALPR use protocol has far more protections than those companies will ever give you.

And our ALPRs collect far less data than those companies keep on you.

And those companies don't do public regular audits so that everyone knows what's going on.

They certainly don't talk with the San Diego City Council about what they're turning over to the federal administration.

Now let's talk about the results, because this is undeniable.

In fact, no one even with a straight face says that this isn't happening.

We are delivering results, measurable, concrete results.

ALPRs have helped recover over 440 stolen vehicles.

20% drop in car thefts, 50% in Mr.

Whitburn's district alone.

It's helped us recover ghost guns and even prevented kidnappings of two children in Mission Valley Mall, which was part of my district, and then it was redistricted to Councilmember Whitburns.

These aren't statistics, these are families.

Real outcomes, real people, a clear return on public investment.

There's a lot of waste and mismanagement in government.

This is anything but waste and mismanagement.

Now, I also understand the concerns raised about privacy and immigration enforcement.

Those concerns, incredibly valid.

I believe the federal government is overreaching.

But our new policy, paired together with state law, meets that head on.

Prohibiting any sharing of data with ICE or border patrol or federal task forces, limiting data retention to 30 days, requiring independent audits, mandating public transparency.

These are safeguards that are the strongest in California, making it virtually impossible for ALPRs to be misused for immigration enforcement.

Let's also be candid about something here.

30 days of retention for this data is short.

I'm a former prosecutor.

I know that when you have serious violent felonies, you have to piece together patterns of behavior that can take months of action by criminals.

Our governor even voted, vetoed a statewide 60-day limit because he recognized that 60 days is far too restrictive for effective evidence collection.

Still, San Diego is choosing some restraint on this, balancing justice with privacy.

As we know, not everyone goes to PD after a crime occurs.

It takes time and trust.

And I'm gonna say that 30 days really isn't enough to catch the most heinous among us.

I also understand why some people mistrust the company behind the technology.

Flock, we've read headlines, but the truth is that the system really isn't theirs.

It's ours.

It's in the hands of our police department.

Every jurisdiction controls its own contract.

And in San Diego, no one outside our city, whether it's a federal agency or a private company or other police departments has access to our data.

It's local, it's used only for legitimate investigations into serious crimes.

That's written directly into our contract and the updated policy, and I thank the chair for digging in deep with our flock representatives here today to get to the bottom of that.

I want to dispel another myth.

These cameras aren't spying on people.

No one is sitting behind a screen watching San Diegans drive around.

They're placed in public places, their locations are public knowledge, and they capture license plates only, not faces, not homes, not pedestrians, and the police department has worked with community groups to move them when community groups say they still don't feel comfortable with them.

Under the new use policy, the public will know exactly when and how the technology is used.

So this is some smart focused policing that helps us find the right suspect, deliver justice for victims, and prevent violence before it happens.

And prevention, it absolutely matters, and it's absolutely happening.

Since ALPRs were implemented, we've seen that dramatic drop in car thefts, and criminals know they're far more likely to be caught in San Diego.

And that deterrence keeps the cost of living down in San Diego.

You might ask how.

It keeps car insurance rates from skyrocketing.

Let me be very specific about this.

Average annual car insurance premiums in San Francisco are roughly 475 dollars higher than in San Diego.

Vehicle theft is a major driver of that cost.

Supporting ALPRs isn't just good for safety, it's good for your affordability in your household.

Let's also consider the regional picture.

Every neighboring city, well, not every, but the vast majority of made neighboring cities use ALPRs.

If the largest city in the region weakens its system, we create a magnet for criminality.

And as much as I care about the broader region, I don't want criminals to operate anywhere, but my first duty, and it's written directly into the city charter, is to protect the safety of San Diegans.

It's there.

So let's be clear anyone using this discussion to undermine a proven crime prevention tool is gonna have to look the victims in the eye and explain why their victim suffering just doesn't matter.

It does matter.

It matters to me, it matters to our police department, and I have to say the same to anyone who'd rather see our insurance rates climb up.

Go explain that to working families already stretched thin.

I don't think they want to spend 475 dollars on car insurance.

Now, right before this item, a lot of people have left the chamber.

We just approved a policy to lower the number of cars towed because people who live in poverty and even those who aren't in poverty struggle mightily when their car is towed.

What about the people whose cars are stolen?

The top brands of stolen cars aren't new Lexuses and BMWs.

They're older models of Honda Elantras and Honda Civics and Chevy Silverados and Kia Optimas.

If you want the city to tow less cars, you ought to want criminals to steal fewer cars.

ALPRs deliver that in both prevention and in recovery of stolen property.

We can and we do uphold public safety, protect civil rights, and preserve affordability all at once.

This updated policy shows us how.

Strong oversight, smart technology, shared accountability, and a chair of public safety who asked a lot of really hard questions.

I appreciate you.

Let me be clear.

I don't think that those who are advocating to get rid of ALPRs want to see crime and costs go up.

But that's the predictable and certain conclusion of that position.

It's simply unsupportable.

People honed in on Flock as a company.

I understand, I've read the stories.

But I don't hear anyone coming up here saying, why don't you go to Motorola Solutions?

Or Genetech AutoVoo or Recource Symptoms or LSAG.

Vigilant Car Detector Mobile has not been brought up.

Open ALPR, haven't heard about them.

Plate Smart Ares, Milestone X Project, TransCorps Conduit CAPSH.

I'm not hearing any suggestions from people who don't like Flock.

Last but not least, our city, to be anywhere close to par with other major big cities in America, would need close to 100 more police officers to have a ratio of officers to population.

That would likely cost 100 million dollars more for our city budget.

As everyone knows, that's 100 million dollars we do not have.

We're spending $2 million basically a year to operate this program because we don't have 100 million dollars to get the ratio higher.

Nineteen of the 20 largest cities also use ALPRs.

Only Austin of the top 20 has decided to turn them off at this point.

So I want to thank SDPD, the community voices who were part of this to make this policy stronger.

This is what responsible and effective and efficient and cost-saving modern policing looks like, rooted in transparency, focused on cost effectiveness, and aiming to protect victims.

San Diego is the safest big city in America.

Let's keep it that way.

Let's not make it worse.

And I'm proud to support this program and second the motion because while some people think this is about supporting or being against the police department, I don't really see it that way.

This is about providing protection to victims.

That's why we have this.

That's what they're about.

That's what I'm about.

I second your motion.

Thank you very much, um, Vice Chair.

And I also, I need to remake the motion.

I've been advised by the city attorney that I need to make findings.

Um, but I make the motion to recommend it to recommend council approval of staff's proposed actions under the transparent and responsible use of surveillance technology ordinance, finding that the staff report, privacy advisory board recommendations, and backup materials support findings under San Diego Mississippi Code Section 210.0108C that the approved surveillance use policies should remain in effect, and A that the benefits to the community of the city's use of surveillance technology outweigh the costs, B, the use of surveillance technology will safeguard civil rights and civil liberties, and C, based on the facts and information presented to the city council, there's no effective alternative to the proposed surveillance technology that provides a lesser financial cost to the city and impact on civil rights or civil liberties.

So I may thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Now turn to Councilmember Campbell.

Thank you so much.

And thank you for the presentation, which was wonderful.

And you know, I really appreciate all the data we can get.

I appreciate the facts.

The facts is what we need to go on.

And I want to thank the entire police department for all the work you do every single day to keep our residents safe.

And as city officials, as is pointed out by my colleague, it is our duty and top priority to ensure the safety of our communities.

That's our number one job.

And to do that effectively, we must continue to provide our officers with tools like smart street lights and automated license plate readers that help protect our neighborhoods.

And since their implementation, they have proven to be effective public safety tools that was shown here today.

They've helped our officers solve burglaries, locate kidnappers, identify individuals responsible for hate crimes against members of the LGBTQ community and other communities that have been under pressure.

These are real examples of how these tools make San Diego safer and enhance our officers' ability to protect us.

It's important to note that we are living in an era where cameras are already a common part of daily life, as has been pointed out.

Each of us probably has one in our pocket.

From grocery stores, shopping malls to bars, even neighborhoods through ring cameras.

We are out in public, we are being seen.

The difference is that here in the city of San Diego, we are using our technology that we are in charge of and that our police department is in charge of with strict oversight, accountability, and transparency.

At the same time, I want to acknowledge the fear and uncertainty that many people may feel in today's political climate.

And we heard about that today.

Across the nation, we are witnessing attacks on our civil liberties and threats to our various neighborhood communities.

These actions are intentionally designed by those who are in charge of them to sow fear, to erode public trust and public institutions.

But leadership is not about giving in to fear.

Leadership means standing firm on our principles, making rational informed decisions grounded in facts and not in fear.

Here in San Diego, in San Diego, we are committed to using these tools responsibly and in full compliance with the law.

The San Diego Police Department has been very clear.

They follow all applicable state privacy laws, are legally prohibited from sharing our data with any out-of-state agency, including the federal government.

In fact, under California law, it is illegal to share this information with any out-of-state or federal entity.

The only way data can possibly be accessed is through access is through a California court order, not a federal order.

And only with the explicit approval of the city of San Diego.

And that is a critical safeguard of our residents' privacy for maintaining public trust.

These technologies have also provided tremendous support for our hardworking union represented officers who are severely understaffed, work incredibly long hours to keep our neighborhood safe, and yet we are the number one safest city in America.

The smart street lights and ALPRs are force multipliers that allow our officers to solve crimes more effectively and efficiently while ensuring that our limited resources are used wisely.

And for all these reasons, I want to reaffirm my support for the continued use of smart streetlights and ALPRs.

They are effective, responsible, legally compliant tools that protect our residents, respect our privacy laws, and support our police officers who serve and protect our citizens.

Thank you very much for everything, and thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Now turn to Councillor Whitburn.

Thank you, Chair von Bulbert.

Let me start by acknowledging the tremendous amount of work in recent years and in recent months that has gone into the item that is before us today.

From the trust coalition's work to create the privacy advisory board to the privacy advisory board's review of and input on these technologies to the police department's engagement, uh implementing some changes, explaining why it disagrees with others, uh, and to the community members and groups who have made it very clear why this matters to them.

We heard strong feelings today in opposition to ALPRs and in support of ALPRs.

The conversation around ALPRs has centered around the risk of misuse.

And the threat of technology being misused is real and it is constant.

Something as commonplace today as personal computers are misused all the time through hacking and phishing and scams, all sorts of stuff.

People have hacked into government computers and stolen social security numbers, disrupting people's lives through identity theft and much more.

Council Member Campio mentioned the data companies got from our cell phones.

We may never be able to stop all of that completely.

But it doesn't mean that we don't use technology.

We do try to protect ourselves and minimize the risk.

I think the fear of ALPRs being misused strikes a particular nerve because the fear is of our own federal government.

The administration is advancing an agenda that many of us disagree with, and they are willing to break the rules to carry out that agenda.

And as infuriating as that is, I think our approach to that risk should be the same as it is for all technologies to try to protect ourselves and to minimize the risk.

Like many technologies, ALPRs could be used for good or for evil.

I think a reasonable goal is to take advantage of the good while minimizing the risk of evil.

We've heard about both today.

We've heard about how ALPRs help reduce crime.

We've heard about how the technology could be misused.

I won't revisit all of that.

Both things are true.

In my judgment, the evidence is strong that ALPRs can do some real good.

And I don't want us to lose the good that they do.

At the same time, I don't want us to ignore the fear that they could be misused.

They absolutely could be misused, and that is what we need to protect against.

Some of the other cities that we've heard about don't restrict who has access to their data.

And then it comes out who accessed that data and what it was used for, and people are understandably upset, and as a result, that city gets rid of the technology.

In many cases, those cities could have avoided some of those issues if they had restricted access to the data.

The City of San Diego obviously does restrict who has access to the data.

San Diego is much more restrictive.

Access is tightly limited in San Diego.

Now we heard about the issue early on where there was access by agencies who should not have had access.

But even then and in the time since, I have not been informed of any specific incident in which the City of San Diego's ALPR data has actually been used to facilitate an immigration arrest.

I think it's fair to say that we may not know exactly how the data that was accessed early on was used.

I think it's fair to say there's always a risk that data could be misused, but we don't have a specific case to point to that I know of where the city of San Diego's data was actually misused in a way that people are concerned about.

But we do have a whole host of specific cases to point to where the city's data was used to solve murders, was used to solve hate crimes, was used to recover people's cars that were stolen.

Uh car thefts are down 20% since ALPRs were installed.

We have actual knowledge of how ALPRs have produced many good results.

We have fears about how they could be misused.

It is in response to that real and understandable fear of misuse that we are tightening the policy.

I think just about everybody would agree that this proposed use policy is an improvement over the previous policy.

This use policy makes it express explicitly clear that SDPD will not share ALPR data with federal agencies or law enforcement agencies in other states, that the data may not be used for immigration enforcement or in cases involving reproductive rights.

And it requires more transparent and rigorous auditing and documentation of how ALPR data is used with processes that STPD and the vendor have to follow.

I do have one follow-up question for the city's uh data security chief.

If I could trouble you to uh come back up to the microphone, you had mentioned that FLOC has a number of certifications.

Um as a lay person, I would like to understand what the significance of certifications is in the data security world because we often think of certifications as demonstrating that somebody knows how to do something, and uh we want something more than Flock knows how to keep data safe.

Um does a certification in any way give us confidence about the actual security of the data.

What do those certifications actually tell you?

Uh yeah, so maybe a good analogy would be um using a building expect uh inspector if you were to uh consider leasing or buying a property.

You want to ensure that you're doing your deal due diligence before entering into that agreement, and um you want to make sure that you have an accredited uh inspector coming in to make sure that the the building is being run securely, they have uh their processes are that are in place or industry best standards.

So I guess that's a good analogy.

So it gives us the confidence that um they are performing within all these cybersecurity frameworks.

Again, these are very well known and recognized certifications throughout the industry, and that they have to maintain those and go through a pretty rigorous process to do so, which they are annually audited on as well to maintain that certification.

Okay, so these are third-party entities then that are going in.

Okay, that's very helpful.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Well, hopefully we've struck the right balance, and ALPRs will continue to help us solve crimes, and they won't be misused in the city of San Diego.

Uh, as has been mentioned, uh, we'll be conducting regular audits.

We'll be monitoring things closely to be sure that we got this right.

Um, and if we have to come back and revisit this, as the chair pointed out, we will.

Um let me close out with a comment about next steps.

Uh the privacy advisory board and the police department have been doing a lot of work on this all year.

Uh what we're doing today will get us a step toward finalizing this ALPR use policy and the 2025 annual surveillance report.

That said, at this point, we are three months out from the 2026 annual surveillance report, uh, which is due in February.

So if it would make more sense, I, speaking for myself would be okay with leaving the 2025 report where it is and turning our attention to the 2026 report and having the ALPR use policy finalized in time for that.

I've heard a strong sentiment from key stakeholders who are concerned about ALPR technology that if we're going to continue to use it, it's important that we get these policies finalized and actually implemented as soon as possible.

And I would certainly concur and ask that we do that.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you very much.

And thank you to my colleagues for asking great questions and having great comments as well.

Um I appreciate you very much.

Um and so I think we are done with public comment as well.

So the vice chair of report, my name is Ted Wilmack.

Um there were actually two questions that were asked up here today that privacy advisory received a little bit different information.

So I just wanted to present that to you all or ask that to you all.

Um I don't I'm sorry, I know this is not appropriate.

Um as far as our we're happy to talk offline.

We just we can't.

I'm getting the nod from the city attorney that we didn't notice a privacy advisory board meeting, so we can't have but I would like to hear your information before it goes to full council.

The two questions I see, Tim I I will wait after this meeting if you're hearing I will, but I don't want to violate the Brown Act.

I'm getting the nod.

Okay.

I appreciate you, but I definitely want to hear it, and I'm sure my colleagues will too.

So if you would put them in writing as well, that would be very helpful for the public.

Okay.

Um thank you.

All right.

Any other questions, comments?

Nope.

Okay, I appreciate you.

And um, with this, let's take the vote.

Item three passes unanimously, 4-0.

All right, thank you very much.

Um that brings us to the end of this item.

Thank you to everyone who participated.

And I do want to follow up with the two privacy advisory board members who are here about additional comments on the report.

I'd be happy to hear it.

Um, this now brings us to the end of our agenda.

So we will now take up a non-agenda public comment.

Uh, the council members respect and appreciate the public's input and are fully committed to protecting every participant's free speech rights at council and committee meetings.

Sarah, please proceed with non-agenda public comment.

Thank you, Chair von Wolpert.

Per rule 2.7, non-agenda public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items that are not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

And if you're watching on City TV or the live stream online and you'd like to dial in, please call 1669-2545252.

Inputting webinar ID 161-217-1797 pound.

We have received one slip here in chambers.

Lori Saldania, if you will please approach the lector, and you will have two minutes to provide your non-agenda public comment.

Uh so the last time I think I attended one of these hearings, it was to go over the untested sexual assault evidence kits.

Thousands of them.

When I listen to people on this committee testify about your concerns of public safety, I always think of the thousands of survivors of sexual assault in the city who have never had their cases investigated because the San Diego police department, despite having the technology and the knowledge and the evidence, did not investigate those evidence kits as the law now requires them to do.

And in fact, over 2,000 untested kids sat for years, in some cases for decades, and over 540 of them matched with people in the CODA system that were known to be violent offenders, or at least known to be offenders of some type.

Now I sit here today.

I haven't attended one of these meetings for quite a while, and I reminded myself why.

I hate hearing what amounts to be quiet announcements that you are running for higher office, and you are looking to audition for the endorsement of the police officers association as their president sits in this room.

It is tiresome.

And I'm speaking as one who has served at the state constitutional officer level to watch people uh twist the words of people who testify for their own good.

If technology was the answer, thousands of women and men who were sexually assaulted in San Diego would have received justice.

Technology is not the answer.

The system is not flawed.

The system is operating as you want it to operate.

You are protecting selected people using selected technology, and you were justifying it when you make decisions like this today.

For the thousands of men and women who were assaulted and have never seen justice because you chose not to use technology.

You will answer to them when you run for your next office.

That concludes testimony here in chambers.

So I will begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide non-agenda public comment.

Each speaker will have two minutes and we will begin testimony with Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Very nice public comment from uh previous public comment from Lori Saldano.

Nice to hear.

Uh things are uh a lot of things are happening.

I'm learning a lot right now.

Um, good luck what our conversations can be developing in the next six months uh on the previous item.

A lot of good comment from everyone.

Uh good luck what we can be thinking and developing and working together on.

I wanted to comment on technology issues on um uh the work down in uh council person Marino's district uh in OT Mesa.

Um she's really pushing strongly for the needs of the park uh system to be working in her in the Ote Mesa area.

And I don't want to at all get in the way of the work she's doing with community in those efforts.

But um, you know, we've had so much difficulty to talk about the future of our our tech data policies and and where exactly it's going uh federal level-wise.

That your own selves, your own city government has taken breaks in how to be more uh gung-ho in pushing technology for for the community at this time.

They're just naturally offering reserves.

And um, I just wish Councilperson Marino would would learn how to offer that reserve and how there's a bit of uh respect and skepticism that we have to be cautious in our future of our technology use.

And that that's um that's a lot in the future of our park systems, uh, what that means.

Um just to make those explanations as a part of her new uh park things in Oktimesa.

I think it's a much more balanced approach, and uh, I hope she works in those and thinks in those terms for all of us in the future.

She's a great uh council person, and um I just it feels too one-sided uh what she's working towards.

If she explains the whole picture more, um, it's just a better way to work.

Uh good luck towards positive sustainability for all of us.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Francine Maxwell.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have two minutes.

Good evening, Francine Maxwell, Southeastern San Diego, the Office of the City Auditor, performance audit of SDP the Internal Affairs Unit.

They need someone on this council to host a meeting so that the community can come and share, not about current cases, open cases, but what um has been going on with the internal affairs, and when you file a complaint, this is an opportunity for us to build bridges and get the information out so that our auditors can do a thorough in assessment.

They're generally, do you feel complaints about police misconduct are investigated and handled fairly?

Overall, do you feel like STPD appropriately addresses misconduct when it arises?

How do your experiences with complaints, misconduct, investigation impact your sense of public safety and public trust?

So, Marnie, Whitburn, Campbell.

I'm missing somebody, the vice chair.

I see you, but I just I'm driving, but you know that charge it.

You need to host a meeting so that we all can come and give stories so that the auditor can do this.

Don't make the community hold their own meeting because the audit department staff has said that they will come if we hold a meeting.

But it's better if you hold the meeting and you hold the hearing.

So let's consider everybody getting together.

I've sent a message to Marnie's office.

I sent a message to Marino's office since she's the audit chair, and of course, no response.

You guys get 200 emails an hour.

I respect that.

But we all need to pitch in and get this audit, uh, give it a fair shot.

So um, somebody, please host a meeting.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Kathleen Lippett.

Please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

Um, thank you for letting me speak.

Policies like the trust ordinance were referred to as a force multiplier.

That description also applies to every policy or ordinance the city supports or adopts.

I've worked with Pacific Beach residents for over 20 years to increase their community capacity to have a say in the policies that can increase or decrease their community problems.

As noted earlier, Pacific Beach is number two in crime.

Much of that is alcohol related.

Crime is like DUIs, pedestrian industries, deaths, violent assaults, over service.

These all could be mitigated if mitigated if the city would only adopt an on sale CUP process that could hold those 10% of irresponsible alcohol retailers accountable for fueling alcohol related crimes when they conduct when they overserve when they have bar crawls, where the level of over service is written across their t shirts for how many bars they've gone to and how many drinks they've had.

These are communities in Pacific Beach are already high prime and unduly concentrated with alcohol outlets.

The ABC alcoholic beverage control will continue to grant more alcohol licenses and expansions in Pacific Beach unless the city stops them.

The city has to be responsible for putting a policy in place that will prevent the ABC from granting more licenses and census tracts that are already high crime and unduly concentrated.

The community members and PB have been advocating for this policy for 20 something years.

And it's time the city listened to them.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer has concluded.

We have four hands remaining in the queue, and we will take no other hands beyond these four individuals.

Peggy Walker, please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm a public health educator and youth mentor.

I came to commend council members Campillo and Campbell as part of the city's economic development committee for endorsing a crackdown on illegal cannabis delivery services in San Diego, and to urge this public safety committee to do the same.

The proposed policy or crackdown would raise penalties for illegal cannabis delivery activity in the city.

City officials estimate 60% of cannabis consumed here comes from the illegal market and blame illegal activity for costing the city tax revenue and worsening budget deficits.

Crackdown on illegal deliveries would help improve public health as there's no control over what illegal deliveries delivery services sell or to whom they sell.

Those underage are the most vulnerable.

Councilmember Jennifer Campbell, you stated that we really have to control the industry much more.

And you have previously stated support for potency caps.

Thank you.

Studies show high potency products present staggering health and mental health harms, especially to those under 26.

In my work, reports of new scientific studies pass my desk weekly demonstrating the devastating harms of high potency THC.

In Europe, the THC cap is 10%, while here there is no cap, allowing THT content as high as 98%.

This is a dangerous policy gap that public that threatens public health and safety.

Thank you for hearing my concerns.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

Good evening, members of the public safety committee.

My name is Becky Rath, and I serve on my local planning group.

And tonight I'd like to thank and applaud this committee for using good common sense when addressing the priorities surrounding the ALPRs.

Residents are grateful and grateful that you prioritize safety and put it first in our communities.

Tonight, I'd like to address another concerning community issue surrounding high, highly intoxicating hemp products being sold illegally in tobacco and vapes and smoke shops.

For the past year, we've had an emergency ban in place preventing the sale of these products.

Now, with the passage of assembly bill eight, this ban is permanent.

Despite that, these products are still being sold openly, blatantly, and without consequence.

In my own community, two smoke shops have been reported to law enforcement, yet they continue to operate as if the law doesn't apply to them.

I'm asking this committee to agendize a discussion, an action plan to enforce AB8.

The removal of illegal hemp derived products from retail stores is critical to public health and safety.

Placing this on a future agenda would allow city staff to coordinate with the California Department of Public Health and local law enforcement to ensure that all retailers are held to the same standard.

Violators should face strict penalties, including potential permit suspensions or business closures.

Our communities deserve consistent protection from these illegal and harmful products.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the final hand remaining in the queue is Nancy Bem.

Nancy, please unmute and begin.

Hi, my name is Nancy.

I'm with SERG San Diego.

And I just want to share that I'm deeply disappointed in the council members' votes.

Most of you are not representing racially that racially diverse of districts, and you're just ignoring the needs and safety of our black and brown neighbors.

And I say that as a white person, and I say that as somebody who also works in homeless services, who's seen the safety needs of our unhoused neighbors be just flagrantly ignored by STPD.

And so I just asked that this committee really look at a bigger picture of what public safety entails.

Safety, true safety, and crime prevention would involve funding community resources, like getting library hours back, having a fully funded parks and rec community programs, mental health resources, you know, just the poverty prevention, right?

We just talked about this with the towing um agenda item.

Um so I just asked you to have a bigger picture as you're looking at public safety.

You all are Democrats.

I'm hoping you're seeing this big wave that just happened across the nation.

Um, of what we are demanding.

We are demanding that you are considering the needs of working families and maybe our experiencing setbacks and disabilities.

Um, public safety should include all of us.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony and chair with the five-minute timer exhausted, no hands in the queue.

This concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you very much to members of the public who participated.

That brings us to the end of our agenda.

Uh thank you to everyone and our staff and our city attorney and our IBA for uh being here with us today.

I will now adjourn this meeting to the of the public safety committee meeting to our next regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday, January 21, uh, 2026.

However, we may be having a special meeting in December, so keep your eyes open.

All right, thank you.

We are adjourned.