On Tuesday, the Brentwood City Council agreed in a 4-0 vote to bring back an item regarding private parties installing and using Flock cameras within the city of Brentwood.
Sue Harper, who is listed as the secretary with the Shadow Lakes Homeowners Association, spoke during the meeting, asked that Shadow Lakes not be portrayed as having acted improperly.
“The association followed the city’s permitting process, obtained the required approvals, and complied with applicable laws and requirements before installing the Flock safety cameras. The cameras were purchased with association funds to help deter crime and assist the Brentwood Police Department with criminal investigations. As a homeowner, I observed that information about the proposed system was shared through community newsletters, board meetings, and neighborhood watch communications. Residents had opportunities to learn about the project and ask questions. The board has since voluntarily eliminated its own administrative access to Flock. Access is now limited to professional management and authorized management personnel,” said Harper. “The board is also preparing a formal flock safety camera policy addressing access, privacy, and use of the system, which will be provided to homeowners for the required 28 day review and comment period before consideration for adoption. I respectfully ask that tonight’s discussion distinguish between a broader policy debate about the future and the actions of an association that has followed the laws and procedures in place at the time.”
Allen Baquilar, director of engineering for the city of Brentwood, shared the application, being part of the greater police department agreement with FLOCK was issued by mistake and they are working to correct – meaning any cameras installed in the public right of way that’s not in coordination with the police contract will have to be removed.
“I might that doesn’t prevent, and I’m not sure if there are any safeguards in place, to prevent these flock cameras to then be relocated into onto private property where they could similarly be facing the public streets. I’m not sure if there’s um any restrictions on that,” said Baquilar.
He continued by saying they do not allow u cameras or other devices to be attached to city poles, city infrastructure or in a public right of way without a proper agreement in place.
“Like I said, the ones that are that were issued for Shadow Lakes were under that pretense,” explained Baquilar. “The Flock group that actually applied for the permit, they never clarified with us on that. And so we’re fixing that right now.”
Councilmember Jovita Mendoza expressed the desire to put a policy in place.
She explained while the HOA has a management company, they don’t know who the management company is or what a background check would show or were they potentially stalking anyone.
“I think we need a tighter process in place if someone outside of the police department wants it and it should probably come to council and get public input so that their neighbors get a say on what they want. But that’s I’m not right now we’re not talking about anything with the police ones right now,” said Mendoza. “I also don’t think their MOU and their contract is the same where our police department cannot share this out of state. I don’t think theirs are the same. I think they theirs is like a no hold bar. They can do whatever they want. Which is a little bit scary.”
Mendoza asked for a policy on Flock and similar technology and if the council wanted it or not and what were the steps that a private entity would take to have these installed.
She further highlighted after speaking with a Google executive, this was not like a Ring camera, but rather mass surveillance as Ring you can’t put in a number and your route has been tracked.
Councilmember Faye Maloney said she believed there was a big difference between Flock cameras that are within the police department’s purview versus just private citizens – especially having cameras in public areas that are not impacting their HOA while utilizing city properties.
“There needs to be better accountability measures and I don’t agree with a group of people having access to that data,” said Maloney.
Councilmember Tony Oerlemans agreed with Mendoza there was a big difference between Flock and Ring, noting in the search process you got to watch the Ring camera from start to finish to find out when something happened in front of that camera. He was supportive of the item
Vice Mayor Pa’Tanisha Pierson appreciated the item being brought forward because she had concerns – such as privacy and information sharing.
The council agreed to direct staff to come back to the council with information on private usage of Flock within the city. If they decide its something they want to continue with, they would come with a process to either allow them to be installed or not.
The item passed in a 4-0 vote.
It is unclear how quickly the item will return to the Brentwood City Council.
Note: Mayor Susannah Meyer recused herself from the item because she is a resident of Shadow Lakes and pays HOA fees. Before leaving, she said she did not support FLOCK cameras in her HOA.
Background
Council Member Jovita Mendoza requested that the City Council consider an item to review the City’s process for permitting privately operated Flock cameras. The requested review would address whether private parties should be allowed to install Flock cameras, standards for reviewing proposed installations and determining who may access collected data, and the City’s authority to require removal of cameras if privately operated cameras are determined to be inconsistent with City standards.
That the City Council consider and discuss Council Member Mendoza’s request and provide direction on whether to schedule a future agenda item to:
- Review the City’s permitting process for privately operated Flock cameras.
- Consider standards for approving future installations and controlling access to collected data.
- Evaluate the cameras installed by the Shadow Lakes Homeowners Association.
- Determine whether the City has authority to require the removal of privately operated cameras that do not meet City standards.
At the July 28 meeting, Councilmember Jovita Mendoza brought up the item highlighting the Shadow Lake Homeowners Association installed four flock cameras.
“They said the city gave them the permit, so I want to talk about process is,” said Mendoza. “Flock worked with the city and got the permits and installed these four cameras. The problem is that anyone on their board can review the data. Which is very concerning that anyone that is on the Shadow Lakes HOA can review all of the flock camera data – which is concerning.”
Mendoza said Shadow Lakes did not do the permitting, flock did it on their behalf and she wanted to know how that happens and if anyone else wants to put up flock cameras, was the city going to allow it.
“Now there is four in Shadow Lakes that are not through the police department,” said Mendoza who urged the council to discuss it and come up with a process for vetting it as well as who would have access.
After a friendly amendment by Mayor Susannah Meyer, Mendoza included if they don’t want residents having flock cameras, can they retroactively remove them.
Previous/Related
- Aug 10, 2026 – Brentwood Set to Talk Flock Cameras, Displaying “In God we Trust” and Pay Raise
- July 29, 2026 – El Cerrito Police Give Flock Camera Removal Update
- April 2026 – Antioch Police Announce Flock Transparency Portal
- March 2026 – Split Vote: Richmond Agrees to Extend Flock Contract
- March 2025 – Brentwood Agrees to Add 32 Flock License Plate Reader Cameras