Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Surveillance Alpr topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves one-year ALPR pilot; surveillance-camera expansion to city facilities also authorized amid privacy concerns
Summary
The East Palo Alto City Council approved a resolution authorizing a one-year pilot of Flock automated license-plate readers and expanded cameras at select city facilities, while requiring draft policies, audits and public reporting. Council and public debate focused on data retention, oversight, and equity.
Mayor Lopez opened a long discussion Wednesday night on a staff proposal to expand surveillance cameras on city-owned facilities and to pilot an automated license-plate reader (ALPR) network with vendor Flock.
Chief Jeff Lu told the council the package is a targeted public-safety effort, not “every street corner,” and asked for authority to move forward. “I’m gonna ask for your approval and a resolution to authorize the city manager to move forward with both of these projects,” he said during his presentation.
Lu described two parts: smart lighting and fixed surveillance at parks and public buildings, and 25 fixed ALPR cameras to record rear license plates into a searchable database. He said staff proposes a 30-day retention period for ALPR search data and monthly audits of system use. “When flock collects the footage, it keeps it for a period of— we’re recommending 30 days so that if a crime were to occur, we could go back and we could search for a vehicle matching the description,” Lu said.
San Mateo County District Attorney Steven Wagstaff urged the council to approve a trial, citing solved cases that used ALPR evidence. “But for the camera, that’s an unsolved case,” he said about past investigations, later adding that Flock cameras “gave us the identity of the car” in multiple prosecutions.
Public comment split along privacy and safety lines. Several speakers urged a shorter retention window and independent evaluation; one emailed commenter warned of disproportionate effects on communities of color. Others, including long-time residents and community partners, said the tool could aid investigations and serve as a deterrent.
Council members pressed staff on specifics: which facilities would be covered (e.g., parks, pedestrian overcrossings, senior center, city hall), who would have access (sworn personnel with individual logins), and the vendor arrangements (Juganu smart fixtures for lighting, Flock for ALPR). City Manager Gaines said the police budget contains the funds and that a one-year contract would return to council before any extension.
Several members requested additional safeguards and reporting: a publicly visible transparency portal, a running log of both successful uses and false hits, and a three-month status report. One council member said they would support the ALPR pilot but not the broader surveillance-camera expansion without further policy clarification.
After discussion, the council moved and seconded the resolution to authorize the city manager to execute the one-year pilot and to expand cameras on city facilities under the draft policy and guardrails presented. The resolution was adopted; staff will return with final policies and regular reporting as requested.
Next steps include finalizing contract language (termination provisions were discussed), publishing a transparency portal linked from the city website, and returning to council with a 3-month usage report and the finalized policy for formal adoption.
