From: Danny Ames
To: Macias, Lisa; Padilla, Ingrid
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Request to Consider Long-Term Cost Savings of Tesla Upfits for Police Cruiser Fleet Date: Sunday, February 22, 2026 8:56:46 AM
Dear Honorable Councilpersons and Police Chief Lisa Macias, I respectfully urge you to weigh the current upfit costs against the long-term energy and maintenance savings for our police cruiser fleet.
The upfront investment in Tesla upfits delivers strong economic value when assessed through return on investment (ROI) for future vehicle replacements.
Thank you for your time and consideration of this important fiscal decision.
Sincerely,
Danny Ames
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Murphy, Texas Police officer gives a tour of the department's two brand-new 2026 @Tesla Model Y Patrol Vehicles.
"This runs me almost identical to the price of a Chevy Tahoe. I have been purchasing police cars for a very long time and I have never seen an upfit job that clean and precise. Everything in this cars works. I haven't had any issues."
With fuel and maintenance savings, the Model Y will save the department a lot of money over time.
https://x.com/i/status/2024963350908506508
From: Nunan.Jason (Brisbane)
To: Padilla, Ingrid; Council Members
Cc: Dennis, Jeremy; Salmon.Michele (Brisbane)
Subject: Request to Halt Camera Trial in the Park
Date: Monday, February 23, 2026 1:10:00 PM
Attachments: Flock and Verkada News Clips.pdf
Jason Nunan
478 Kings Road,
Brisbane, CA 94005
[email protected]
(917) 721-8754
February 20, 2026
Brisbane City Council
50 Park Place
Brisbane, CA 94005
Dear Mayor and Members of the Brisbane Council,
RE: Opposition to the Proposed Surveillance Camera Installation in Brisbane Park – Request to Halt the Project Immediately
I am writing as a concerned Brisbane resident to formally oppose the City’s proposed surveillance camera in Brisbane Park and to urgently request the Council halt this project before any testing begins. While I understand the stated rationale of monitoring park demographics, this proposal raises serious privacy concerns that cannot be addressed through assurances alone.
Surveillance Cameras in Public Spaces Erode Privacy
Parks are spaces where residents should gather and relax without their movements being recorded. Even framed as a demographic tool, a surveillance camera fundamentally alters that freedom — with a well-documented chilling effect, particularly on communities historically subject to over-policing. Park monitoring requires collecting imagery capturing residents’ age, race, gender, and other identifying characteristics. Who stores that data, for how long, and under what legal authorities it may later be accessed are questions a pilot program does not answer — and residents deserve answers before any camera is turned on.
Assurances About Data-Sharing Cannot Be Trusted
We have already seen this kind of promise broken nearby with the company that operates our license plate reading system. Mountain View disclosed this January that federal agencies including ATF offices had accessed its Flock camera data without the city’s consent. Tiburon found dozens of federal agencies had accessed its Flock database — part of a broader pattern that has triggered a congressional investigation. The consequences are real:
community members, particularly immigrants and undocumented residents, face surveillance and potential enforcement action based on data that was never supposed to reach federal hands. If neighboring towns could not prevent license plate data from reaching federal agencies despite assurances, there is no credible basis to trust that video footage — far more invasive, capturing faces and personal interactions — will fare any differently.
Surveillance Scope Expands and Pilot Programs Normalize It Technology deployed for narrow purposes rarely stays that way. A camera installed for demographic analysis can be repurposed for law enforcement or protest monitoring with little more than a policy decision. Facial recognition tools are increasingly easy to integrate with existing infrastructure, and no future council or federal court order is bound by today’s stated intentions. Calling this a “pilot” does not reduce the harm — during a test, as residents are still surveilled. It simply builds institutional momentum toward permanence while bypassing the community deliberation this proposal deserves.
The Company Behind This Trial Has a Troubling Track Record The Council should also weigh carefully who is offering this system. Verkada, the company proposing the camera trial, has faced sustained and serious criticism over security failures and privacy concerns. In March 2021, a hacking group obtained administrator-level access to Verkada’s platform and gained access to live feeds from more than 150,000 cameras — including cameras in hospitals, clinics, and schools. This was not a minor breach; it exposed some of the most sensitive environments imaginable to unauthorized surveillance.
The Federal Trade Commission subsequently filed a complaint alleging that Verkada had failed to implement basic security practices. The matter was settled with Verkada paying a $2.95 million civil penalty and agreeing to a permanent injunction. These are not the credentials of a company the City of Brisbane should be partnering with to install cameras in a public park.
Beyond security failures, Verkada markets cloud-based video systems bundled with analytics capabilities including facial recognition and “person of interest” search tools — features that privacy advocates argue can enable dragnet monitoring of entire communities.
While Verkada now promotes “privacy-focused controls” such as face-blur features and restricted face search, critics rightly view these as partial fixes layered on top of a centralized, highly sensitive video platform that was not designed with privacy as a first principle. The fact that Verkada is offering this system as a free trial should itself give the Council pause: companies do not offer free trials of products they are confident communities would willingly purchase after full scrutiny.
My Request to the Council
I urge the Council to:
1. Halt the surveillance camera project immediately, before any testing or installation.
2. Engage the community in a transparent, informed public deliberation process before any future surveillance technology is considered.
3. Explore privacy-respecting alternatives for understanding park usage, such as voluntary surveys or periodic human observation.
4. Commission a full and independent audit of Brisbane's Flock license plate reader system to ensure federal agencies (or hackers) have not accessed the system, data has not been shared with non-California entities, and that data has only been shared for appropriate public safety interests.
Brisbane residents deserve public spaces where they can gather freely, a government that keeps its promises about data, and a voice in decisions of this magnitude. I respectfully but firmly ask the Council to stop this project now.
Sincerely,
Jason Nunan
Brisbane Resident
For Release
FTC Takes Action Against Security Camera
Firm Verkada over Charges it Failed to
Secure Videos, Other Personal Data and
Violated CAN-SPAM Act
Firm to pay $2.95 million for violating CAN-SPAM Act and implement security program to address data security failures
August 30, 2024
Tags: Consumer Protection | Bureau of Consumer Protection | Technology | Advertising and Marketing | Endorsements, Influencers, and Reviews | Privacy and Security | Data Security
The Federal Trade Commission will require security camera firm Verkada to develop and implement a comprehensive information security program to settle allegations the company failed to use appropriate information security practices, which allowed a hacker to access customers’ security cameras.
Under a proposed order , which must be approved by a federal judge before it can go into effect, Verkada will also be required to pay a $2.95 million monetary penalty to settle allegations the company inundated prospective customers with commercial emails in violation of the CAN-SPAM Act, the largest penalty obtained by the FTC for a CAN-SPAM violation.
A complaint filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) upon notification and referral from the FTC, alleged that Verkada failed to use appropriate information security practices to protect consumers’ personal information, which allowed a hacker to access internet-connected security cameras and view patients in psychiatric hospitals and women’s health clinics. The complaint also charged that Verkada was aware that employees and a venture capital investor posted positive ratings and reviews of Verkada and its products but failed to disclose their association or current employment status with Verkada.
The complaint also alleged that Verkada violated the CAN-SPAM Act (Controlling the Assault of NonSolicited Pornography and Marketing) by flooding prospective customers with a barrage of commercial emails and failing to include the option to unsubscribe or opt-out, honor opt-out requests, and provide a physical postal address in the emails.
“When customers invite companies into private spaces to monitor consumers by using their security cameras and other products, they expect those companies to provide basic levels of security, which Verkada failed to do,” said Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Companies that fail to secure and protect consumer data can expect to be held responsible.” “This settlement underscores the importance of robust data security measures, especially for companies that are themselves in the security industry. Failure to protect sensitive information puts consumers at risk,” said Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “We will continue to work with the FTC to hold companies accountable for such violations.”
California-based Verkada sells IP-enabled security cameras and other physical security offerings to thousands of customers, both in the United States and overseas, including those that operate from sensitive locations like schools and hospitals. In its privacy policy, press releases, blog posts and other materials, Verkada claimed it takes data security and customer privacy seriously. For example, in its privacy policy in 2018, the company claimed it uses “best-in-class data security tools and best practices to keep your data safe and protect the Verkada Products from unauthorized access.” The complaint alleges that despite such claims, Verkada failed to provide appropriate security measures to protect the personal information it collects, which includes sensitive video footage from its security cameras as well as data about customer accounts such as names, email addresses, passwords and site floorplans. For example, the company failed to require unique and complex passwords, adequately encrypt customer data, and implement secure network controls.
As a result of these security failures, the complaint alleges, the company experienced at least two security breaches between December 2020 and March 2021. In the March 2021 breach, the hacker had access to over 150,000 live Verkada customer cameras as well as other customer information, The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize.
Learn more about consumer topics at consumer.ftc.gov, or report fraud, scams, and bad business practices at ReportFraud.ftc.gov. Follow the FTC on social media, read consumer alerts and the business blog, and sign up to get the latest FTC news and alerts.
Contact Information
Media Contact
Rebecca Kern
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2180
Infosecurity Magazine Home » News » Verkada Facing Penalty After Hackers Viewed Sensitive Video Footage
2 September 2024
Verkada Facing Penalty
After Hackers Viewed
Sensitive Video Footage
NEWS
Deputy Editor, Infosecurity Magazine
Verkada has been accused by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of security failings that allowed hackers to access customers’ security camera footage.
The FTC's proposed order will require the security camera company to develop and implement a comprehensive information security program to ensure it adequately protects consumer data.
Verkada is also set to pay a $2.95m penalty for allegedly violating the Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act in a number of ways, including not honoring email recipients’ requests to unsubscribe to marketing emails.
The order will need to be approved by federal judge before it goes into effect.
Read now: Georgia Tech Sued Over Cybersecurity Violations Hackers Gained Access to Sensitive Video
Footage
The order relates to a complaint filed by the Department of Justice (DoJ) upon referral by the FTC on August 30, 2024, which alleges that Verkada failed to use appropriate information security practices to protect the personal information it collects.
This includes customers’ video footage and data about customer accounts, such as names, email addresses, passwords and site floorplans.
The complaint alleges that Verkada failed to require unique and complex passwords, adequately encrypt customer data, and implement secure network controls. This is despite extensive claims made by the California-based firm that it takes data security and customer privacy seriously.
The DoJ claimed that the firm experienced at least two security breaches as a result of these failings between December 2020 and March 2021.
James Coker
Follow @ReporterCoker
of these failings between December 2020 and March 2021.
In the March 2021 breach, a hacktivist group gained access to the live feeds of 150,000 cameras around the world, including women’s health clinics and psychiatric hospitals.
According to Verkada, there is no evidence that the hacker accessed more than a subset of the cameras owned by 97 customers during this incident.
Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, commented:
“When customers invite companies into private spaces to monitor consumers by using their security cameras and other products, they expect those companies to provide basic levels of security, which Verkada failed to do.”
Verkada Accused of Misleading Customers
The DoJ complaint said that Verkada mislead consumers with respect to compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the EUUS Privacy Shield framework, and the Swiss-US Privacy Shield framework. The agency claims that Verkada’s security practices were not compliant with either HIPAA or the Privacy Shield frameworks.
Additionally, Verkada is accused of misleading consumers by failing to disclose that certain online consumer ratings and reviews of its camera products were written by Verkada employees and a venture capital investor.
Verkada Accepts Settlement
In a statement responding to the order on August 30, Verkada said it has voluntarily agreed to pay the $2.95m as a settlement, and insisted no fine was issued. "We do not agree with the FTC's allegations, but we have accepted the terms of this settlement so that we can move forward with our mission and focus on protecting people and places in a privacy-sensitive way," the firm stated.
Article updated on September 3
such as physical addresses, audio recordings, and customer WiFi credentials.
Additionally, Verkada misled consumers with respect to its compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework, and the Swiss-U.S. Privacy Shield framework. According to the complaint, Verkada’s security practices were not compliant with either HIPAA or either Privacy Shield framework.
The complaint further alleges that Verkada also misled consumers by failing to disclose that certain online consumer ratings and reviews of its camera products were written by Verkada employees and a venture capital investor, according to the complaint. For example, a venture capitalist who invested in Verkada posted a five-star rating and positive review on Google Maps.
Lastly, the complaint alleges that Verkada violated the CAN-SPAM Act in several ways. According to the complaint, Verkada relied on commercial email campaigns to help market its products, sending more than 30 million commercial emails over a three-year period. Verkada’s commercial emails violated the CAN-SPAM Act in four ways, including not honoring email recipients’ requests to unsubscribe.
In addition to the monetary penalty, the proposed order also will prohibit the company from making misrepresentations about Verkada’s privacy and data security practices and require it to implement a comprehensive information security program with third-party audits. The proposed order also will prohibit Verkada from violating the CAN-SPAM Act.
The Commission voted 5-0 to refer the complaint and stipulated order to DOJ. The DOJ filed the complaint and stipulated order in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California. Commissioner Melissa Holyoak issued a separate concurring statement.
NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the named defendant is violating or is about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
The lead staff attorneys on this matter are Jacqueline Ford and Kamay Lafalaise from the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection.
The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition and protect and educate consumers.
HOURLY NEWS
LISTEN LIVE
MY PLAYLIST
NATIONAL
DONATE
Why some cities are ditching their Flock license
plate readers
HEARD ON ALL THINGS CONSIDERED
UPDATED FEBRUARY 19, 2026 · 5:02 AM ET
By Jude Joffe-Block
3-Minute Listen PLAYLIST TRANSCRIPT
A Flock Safety license plate reader is seen last year along a public road in Houston.
David Goldman/Associated Press
Play Live Radio
Sponsor Message
Continue
Open
The use of automatic license plate readers has exploded across the country in recent years. The cameras on roads and freeways that take images of the back of passing cars are popular with police for solving crimes.
But as President Trump's immigration enforcement crackdown has escalated in recent months, residents of various American cities are urging local leaders to stop using these cameras, citing fears of mass surveillance and concerns that local data could be aiding a federal deportation dragnet.
Many of the grassroots campaigns have targeted cameras made by Flock Safety, an Atlanta-based company that has contracts with more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies across the country. Some cities have grappled with the issue and decided to keep their cameras due to public safety, but in a number of places, the pressure has worked.
The liberal college towns of Flagstaff, Ariz., Cambridge, Mass., Eugene, Ore. and Santa Cruz, Calif., are among a list of at least 30 localities that have either deactivated their Flock cameras or canceled their contracts since the beginning of 2025 – with much of the activity happening in just Sponsor Message
the last three months.
"We are seeing a lot more momentum," said Will Freeman, a Coloradobased activist who opposes the cameras and runs the DeFlock.me website, which through crowdsourcing has mapped the locations of more than 76,000 license plate readers across the country. "I expect there to be more cities dropping Flock."
Questions over data sharing
Police have praised license plate readers for helping officers track down stolen cars and find criminal suspects. The cameras have been credited with assisting in solving high profile crimes, including locating the body of the Brown University shooting suspect at a New Hampshire storage facility in December.
Flock's AI-powered cameras scan license plates as well as vehicles' identifying details, such as make, model and color, that police can use as search terms. Flock operates a national network of this data that police can query to track the location of specific vehicles, far beyond their own city limits.
One of the main issues that has come up in debates over Flock cameras are questions about who can potentially access the data local cameras record.
Leaving the Door Wide Open: Flock
Surveillance Systems Expose Washington
Data to Immigration Enforcement
Summary
• Flock Safety automated license plate reader (ALPR) networks have become increasingly common in Washington state.
• Records obtained by UWCHR researchers via public records requests reveal that at OCTOBER 21, 2025
Download the PDF
least eight Washington state law enforcement agencies enabled direct, 1:1 sharing of their networks with U.S. Border Patrol at some point during 2025; eRectively opening the “front door” for searches potentially related to civil immigration enforcement activities.
• Flock audits reveal apparent “back door” access by U.S. Border Patrol to the networks of at least ten Washington police departments which did not explicitly authorize Border Patrol searches of their network data. • Flock audits reveal limited cases of law enforcement agencies in Washington state conducting “side door” searches on behalf of federal immigration enforcement agencies, as well as numerous similar searches by other law enforcement agencies nationwide with access to Flock networks in Washington state. • Discrepancies between Flock audits and other documentation make it impossible for independent researchers to determine the current scope of local organizations’ access and exposure to searches by other Flock users nationwide.
Introduction
In recent months, amidst a national campaign of mass
deportation, concerns have spread among Washington
state residents about local and state authorities’
improper sharing of their personal data with federal
government agencies involved in immigration
enforcement. Some of these concerns revolve around
license plate data, which UWCHR researchers have
found are frequently cited in Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE) records as a tool used in
the identiYcation and location of targets. In July, a
reporter from King 5 News discovered that
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other
federal agencies had made thousands of searches of
the Driver and Plate Search (DAPS) database from Washington state’s Department of Licensing (DOL), resulting in immigration arrests. While the DOL has said that it has [1] From: [email protected]
To: Council Members
Subject: Two-Year Delay in Repairing Brisbane Beach Volleyball Courts - Why? Date: Tuesday, February 24, 2026 9:43:53 AM
Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing as a resident of Brisbane who is increasingly concerned by the condition of the beach volleyball courts and the lack of progress in repairing them over the past two years. These courts have remained in disrepair for an unreasonably long period, despite repeated community interest and their importance as a recreational asset for residents of all ages.
More concerning is that over two years ago, the Parks and Recreation representative informed residents that the courts would be repaired within approximately two months and that lighting would be added so they could be safely used in the evenings. To date, neither the repairs nor the lighting have materialized, and there has been no clear communication explaining the delay or providing an updated timeline.
Brisbane is a community that values outdoor recreation, family-friendly amenities, and transparency from its local government. Leaving a well-used public facility unusable and dangerous for years—after explicit commitments were made—undermines community trust and deprives residents of a resource that could be easily and actively used.
I respectfully ask the City Council to clarify: (1) why the promised repairs and lighting have not been completed, (2) whether funding was allocated and, if so, where the project stands, and (3) when residents can realistically expect the courts to be restored and improved as originally communicated.
I appreciate the Council’s service to our city and look forward to a clear response and a concrete plan to resolve this long-standing issue.
Sincerely,
Chris Hornick
Brisbane, CA
C: (415) 860-6004
From: Kim Follien
To: Padilla, Ingrid
Subject: Regarding the BCC Mtg Agenda New Business Item N. Pilot Camera in Community Park Date: Wednesday, March 4, 2026 10:50:01 PM
Dear Mayor Makin and members of the City Council,
I'm writing to express my opposition to the proposed 90 day Pilot Program for Camera Use in the Community Park. This appears to be a solution in search of a problem or purpose. No measurable criterion for this pilot's success is in the proposal. What triggered the need for future park planning or for enhancing the user experience at the park? Why does the City need to improve its understanding of park usage patterns? What triggered the need to collect data for park design, amenities, programming, maintenance, and resource allocation? What amenities and programming? What does resource allocation refer to? The staff report cites other cameras in the City. Do these other cameras have a specific purpose, unlike this vague pilot proposal? The article in the Star states that the camera would support efforts to protect park assets (this statement was not in your staff report). How? There have been 3 instances of vandalism in the bathrooms: October 2024, May 2025, and June 2025 (source: BPD Police Blotter). If there are no instances of bathroom vandalism during the 90- day pilot, how would you possibly correlate that to the camera? It's been 9 months since the most recent instance, so the absence of a camera seems equally successful. Also, the cost of the vandalism that occurred in Oct 2024 was stated as only $25. Costs for the other 2 occurrences weren't provided.
The public didn't ask for a camera for this purpose, and I'm not sure it's even on the City Council's priority list. Why should city staff resources be used for this?One resident requested a camera in the park because an unleashed dog from the park attacked his dog outside the park. Unleashed dogs in the park are not mentioned in the proposal. However a simple solution for this is to call the BPD non-emergency number. I have their number in my phone contacts, and have called several times, and they always showed up.
Best Regards,
Kim
--
Kim Follien (she/her)
Genentech, Inc. - A member of the Roche Group
Senior Business Systems Analyst
Product Analysis & Consultancy Chapter - ERP Business Analysis - Manufacturing&Supply Chain NA/LATAM Building 26 / N1-4
South San Francisco, CA 94080, USA
Phone No.: +1 650-303-7285
Cd^y\ ^ch/l
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,'
Request for Review of Cracker Park Zoning
We are Brisbane residents who care deeply about our neighborhoods and the futire ofCrocker Park. With one company, Prologis, now owning 24 properties there, we believe this is an important time for the City to review what future redevelopment could mean for our community Concerns About Future Uses
Accordmg to Prologis website it is a global logistics real estate company that develops and operates distribution centers worldwide. These facilities can include large warehouse operations with heavy tmck traffic and last-mile delivery hubs with j&equent van movement. With one owner controlling much of the area, changes could happen more quickly and at a larger scale than m the past.
Impacts on Homes, School, and Open Space
We are concerned about possible increases in noise, lighting, night activity, truck traffic, and air pollution - especially because homes on the Northeast Ridge and our middle school sit above Cracker Park and are close enough to feel those impacts more intensely. Our parks, trails, and nearby ecological areas could also be affected.
A Request to Work Together
We respectfully ask the Council to take a careful look with us at the current zoning and rules for Cracker Park to be sure they still protect our neighborhoods, our school, our parks, our trails, and our quality of life - before major changes befall us.
We love Brisbane and want to preserve what makes our community special. Please place this matter on your next agenda and notify us my mail.
Thank you for your consideration.
S°rl y-
^.^ 6^A-r^-
Name:
Name:
Name:
Name: " & i
Name:
NameName:
Name:
r
f
u
<J^\
/4/^/^^Ar /^^,
Address:
Address:
Address:
Address: )7>
Address:
Address:
Address:
Address:
(o-^n.
O^r L L _ ,
^ c^s>^ t^- ^/-fcK /^
From: Sarah Mills
To: Council Members; Padilla, Ingrid
Subject: Request for Parent Input and Caution Regarding Proposed Camera at Community Park Date: Thursday, March 5, 2026 1:11:31 PM
Dear Members of the Brisbane City Council,
I’m writing as a Brisbane resident and parent who frequently uses The Brisbane Community Park with my 4 year old child. Our family, like many others, is at the park several days a week - often three to four times - and it’s an important gathering space for families in our community.
First, I want to acknowledge and appreciate the diligence the City has shown in carefully considering the proposal to install a camera in the park, including the thoughtful discussion of the pros and cons and the idea of a 90-day pilot. It’s clear the Council is trying to balance public safety, privacy, and responsible use of city resources.
That said, I feel strongly that Community Park should remain camera-free.
In the four years I have lived in Brisbane and used the park regularly, I have never witnessed illegal activity there. While I understand the very unfortunate situation involving the dog attack and I’m truly sorry that happened to the resident and their pet, I worry that installing surveillance cameras in a neighborhood park sets a concerning precedent. In an era where data breaches are common and surveillance tools are sometimes used beyond their original intent - especially if policies or laws change over time - installing cameras in community spaces can be a slippery slope.
As a parent, I value the Brisbane Community Park as one of the few places where families and children can gather freely in a simple, low-surveillance environment. Many parents rely on the park as a regular part of their routines, yet working parents are often unable to attend weekday or early evening council meetings. Because families are among the most frequent users of this park, I respectfully ask that the City hold a public meeting at a time that working parents can realistically attend (for example, a weekend or later evening meeting) to gather input from parents and caregivers before moving forward with a camera installation.
If the Council does decide to proceed with the proposed 90-day pilot, I strongly encourage the City to also commit to holding a comprehensive public review at an accessible time for working families before making any decision about extending or making the cameras permanent. Input from those who use the park most often should be an important part of that decision.
There may also be other ways to address the concerns that prompted this proposal without introducing permanent surveillance infrastructure. For example, the City could consider increased weekend police presence (this could also help the kids get to know the city's police officers!), clearer enforcement and education around leash laws, or other approaches to deter problematic behavior. If the City is interested in understanding park usage patterns, that information could also be gathered through more traditional means, such as having a city staff member or surveyor collect observational data on busy weekends.
Community Park is a special place for many Brisbane families, and I hope the City will prioritize keeping it an open, welcoming, and low-surveillance environment while continuing to explore thoughtful ways to address safety concerns.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.
Sincerely,
Sarah Mills
Brisbane Resident and Parent
--
Sarah Mills
Phone: 774-766-8942 Email: [email protected]
Website: www.2roamingrascals.com
From: Alison C
To: Council Members
Subject: cameras at the park
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2026 11:38:44 AM
Dear Council Members,
I write to object to installing cameras at the park.
I understand there may be times in which video footage would be helpful to our community members, or to deter crime.
However, it is more important that Brisbane not edge toward a surveillance state. The park is a nice place to be free of a surveillance experience. I visit the park about seven days a week, often for more than an hour. It is a beautiful community resource. Cameras are intrusive, expensive, and will inevitably change the tenor of our beloved park.
I am sorry for the experience of the person's dog who was attacked. It doesn't need to be a catalyst for an entire community to change their experience in public life.
Thank you for your consideration and service to the Brisbane community.
Sincerely, Alison
Alison Crossley PhD
Brisbane resident
[email protected]
From: dale wilhelm
To: Council Members
Subject: Proposal for cameras in the park
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2026 9:46:42 AM
To the council,
I am not able to attend the meeting tonight either in person or online.
I fully sympathize with the person whose dog was attacked but in my view, that incident does not warrant installing cameras in the park.
Just last week, someone posted on the Facebook group "Friends of Brisbane" that they had witnessed, some time around midnight, an incident where a driver backed into a parked car, significantly damaging the car, and then drove off. Had there been a camera focused on that general area, law-enforcement may have been able to find and apprehend the driver.
If we need a camera focused on some areas of the park, wouldn't we also need cameras focused on every area of Brisbane, in the chance that a crime might be committed and this would provide the evidence needed for prosecution? Because that is the logical manifestation of this thinking.
I also see in my Facebook book feed activities by police both in San Mateo County and San Francisco. Since this issue has been raised, I have been reading incident reports and never once have I seen that perpetrators have been caught as a result of cameras. Generally, they have been caught while in the act of committing a crime, or because their license plate was checked as a result of a traffic stop for unrelated reasons.
As regards the other suggested reason for having the cameras… Do we really need a camera to tell us what the park is used for and by whom? If the park committee is interested in specific statistics, a less invasive method would be to send representatives to the park on one or two days and look for themselves, or put a survey online.
I fully support our local police, and would wish to make their jobs as easy as possible, but do not see that the possible benefit of having these cameras outweighs the risk of invasion of privacy that they pose.
Respectfully,
Dale Wilhelm
From: Steffi Paepcke
To: Council Members
Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Surveillance Camera in the Park Date: Thursday, March 5, 2026 12:20:40 PM
Dear Brisbane Council Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed installation of a surveillance camera in our local park. As a parent to a 4-year old, my family spends multiple days per week at the park.
I understand and appreciate the town’s responsibility to ensure public safety. However, placing a recording device in a shared community space raises significant privacy concerns for me and, I believe, for many other residents. Parks are among the few places where families, children, and neighbors can gather and relax. The presence of a camera risks changing the character of that space from one of openness and trust to one of surveillance.
I am particularly concerned about how the footage would be stored, who would have access to it, how long it would be retained, and what safeguards would be in place to prevent misuse.
Even with good intentions, systems like this can create unintended consequences, including data breaches, mission creep, or disproportionate impacts on certain community members.
Public safety and personal privacy are both important values. I believe we can support one without compromising the other. I respectfully ask that you reconsider this proposal or, at minimum, pause implementation until there is a transparent community discussion during hours when people who work full-time and have young children are available.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Steffi Paepcke
319 Monterey St.
From: Danette Davis
To: Council Members
Subject: Item N, Community Park Cameras
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2026 2:49:27 PM
Dear City Council Members:
I am writing this letter to oppose the use of surveillance cameras at the community park. I am concerned with the invasion of privacy these tracking systems pose. In addition, I am concerned with the potential that these videos can be hacked by nefarious sources. Also, I am concerned that other agencies can possibly have access to these videos and used them against our citizens. For these reasons, I am against the 90 trial of the camera at the park and the continued use of the Flok System.
Sincerely,
Danette Davis
Sent from my iPhone
From: A
To: Padilla, Ingrid
Subject: Camera"s in park
Date: Thursday, March 5, 2026 3:12:26 PM
Good afternoon,
I am requesting we do not put cameras in the community park nor any other public space even in a trial period. My concerns are my privacy, my civil liberties and potential misuse of surveillance data. I doubt this will have any effect on crime since Brisbane is a low crime area. We have a right to be anonymous in a public space without cameras to destroy our privacy.
I personally need and want to feel comfortable while in the park. Who is paying for this, we the taxpayers? Perhaps you should use the money in repainting stop signs and crosswalks that are gone or fading. Add blinking lights to crosswalks to make it more safe. Thank you for your time. Again, I disagree with cameras in the park. This is an invasion of privacy.
Annette
From: Emily Wirowek
To: Council Members
Cc: Padilla, Ingrid
Subject: Request for Parent Input around Proposed Camera at Community Park Date: Thursday, March 5, 2026 3:18:37 PM
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to request that you ask more questions and gather more information before you start a 90 day trial of a camera in the community park. I feel strongly that the Community Park should remain camera free. I worry that installing a camera will set a precedent that is a slippery slope and create an access point for malicious actors.
I am sorry to hear of the neighbor who had an unfortunate incident with their dog and another's dog that was off the leash. I know how important our fur babies are. They are family and we do not want anything to happen to them.
I appreciate the City hosting a community meeting and all of the work that Jeremy and the team have done. They have done an incredible amount of research and I appreciate the time spent on this.
In addition to all of the work already completed, I request that another community meeting where working parents of young children may attend. Parents are a crucial stakeholder in the usage of the parks in town. I would prefer this to take place before the 90 day trial begins.
If the council chooses to proceed with the 90 day trial, I request that more meetings are set so families may have input (perhaps weekends or late evenings) and review the trial data before a final permanent decision is made.
I would appreciate further discussion around the following questions:
Why are you gathering usage analytics?
What will the information be used for?
How are you gathering that information?
Is there a less invasive and/or more community engaging way to do so? As a parent of a young child, we will not use the park any longer if a camera goes up. We value our child’s privacy and anonymity. I know the team has noted efforts to mitigate the privacy issues. However, there is no way for the City to 100% guarantee that video, photos, information will not be taken or used for CSAM (child sexual abuse matieral) since many of the park goers are children. There are so many issues around CSAM today and I do not want our community to give predators, malicious actors, and hackers one more potential access point to child related material.
I suggest you consider less invasive means to collect the data you are seeking. Perhaps ask community volunteers to engage with park goers. I would wager that several of the MOB will happily volunteer to assist with tracking usage.
In addition, you already have lots of data on usage as you have all of the reservations for the park spaces, the farmers market, and all of other community/city hosted events. If leash laws need to be reviewed, I recommend doing that. Maybe signage regarding leash laws needs to be more prominent. Or hiring more police officers to have a weekend police presence and create a space where families can get to know the police officers.
I strongly urge everyone to take a beat, ask more questions and find other less expensive, less invasive and more community building ways to improve our parks.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Sincere regards,
Emily Wirowek
(Brisbane resident and a Parent of a young Brisbane resident who is not old enough to speak up for herself yet)