Written Public Comments Received 3-3-2026 — Richmond City Council, March 3, 2026

From: Bryan Lam
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Comments on Proposed Tobacco Retail License Ordinance Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 12:18:34 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
Richmond Tobacco Letter 03.03.2026.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Good afternoon,

Please see attached for CFCA’s comments on the City of Richmond’s proposed Tobacco Retail License Ordinance. Thank you.

Kind regards,
Bryan Lam
Policy & Engagement Analyst
2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95833
Main:

(916) 646-5999 | Fax:

(916) 646-5985 |

www.cfca.energy

Advocates for the fuels and convenience store industries since 1952 Book time to meet with me
The California Fuels + Convenience Alliance (CFCA) is aware that fake email messages can be used to trick members into making payments to fraudulent bank accounts. CFCA will NEVER ask you to change our bank account details by email only. Should you receive an email from CFCA advising you of new bank account details, please contact CFCA immediately by phone to confirm that the request is genuine. Do not use the contact details provided in the suspicious email. Please remain vigilant of fraudulent activity.

2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95833 | (916)646-5999 | cfca.energy March 3, 2026
Richmond City Council
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, California 94804

RE: Comments on proposed Tobacco Retail License Ordinance

Honorable Mayor and members of City Council,
The California Fuels & Convenience Alliance (CFCA) represents a majority of California’s 12,000+ retail fuel and convenience store operators, including in the city of Richmond. We appreciate the opportunity to respectfully express our concerns regarding the potential changes to the City’s Tobacco Retail License Ordinance.

We understand and support the City’s intention to regulate safe and compliant tobacco sales.

However, doing so while utilizing arbitrary regulatory tactics such as geographic distance restrictions from community-frequented areas and other retailers, could impose undue strain on small “mom-and-pop” convenience store operators. The CDC and U.S. Surgeon General have provided guidance for proven and effective tobacco regulation measures, many of which are successfully implemented throughout California. Some of these guidelines include taxation of tobacco products, bans on smoking in public spaces, public education campaigns, and strong enforcement and hefty fines for non-compliant retailers. Despite scrupulous studies regarding public health, there has not been a demonstrated causal link between tobacco retailer proximity and underage tobacco use.

Furthermore, California’s experience with product prohibitions and de-facto prohibitions indicates that bans do not eliminate consumer demand; instead, they shift the consumer base towards the illicit market. Such a shift to an unregulated, unlicensed, and untaxed retail environment will put the consumer at significant risk, eliminate vital sales revenue from local business owners, and eliminate tax revenue that would otherwise be put towards important state and local programs, effectively undermining the City’s intentions and public health objectives.

Hence, we strongly urge the Commission to prioritize tried-and-true methods of tobacco regulation backed by evidence and real-world implementation, as opposed to arbitrary tactics that only serve to harm small businesses.

Additionally, we also have concerns regarding the implementation of a city-wide Tobacco Retail License (TRL) cap. Any new caps on TRL’s should take into account the financial realities of

2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95833 | (916)646-5999 | cfca.energy running a small business in today’s business landscape. In an industry where a majority of businesses are family-owned and operated, businesses themselves could represent an operator’s primary retirement asset. Unlike workers with a traditional retirement pension or 401(k), these business owners rely on their business valuation at the time of sale to fund their retirement. As is the reality for many small retail convenience store operators in other municipalities, owning a store where TRL caps or geographic restrictions have been implemented, severely depreciates the business’ value and impacts the owner’s retirement possibilities. We strongly urge the Commission to consider abolishing the TRL cap in the amendment, or if the City does proceed with implementation of a cap, setting the limit higher than the existing number of TRL’s. This will allow for a multi-pronged approach that addresses the City’s density concerns, while preserving Richmond’s local business environment.

We strongly urge City Council to take these points into account when introducing City ordinance revisions, in order to continue prioritizing community health and wellbeing, while being fair and equitable towards the City’s small business owners. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Bryan Lam, Policy & Engagement Analyst
California Fuels & Convenience Alliance

From: Gurpartap Singh
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Fwd: Proposed legacy eligibility language-tobacco retailer license ordinance Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 9:31:50 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Good evening,
I am writing as a new small business owner who recently purchased two long-established convenience stores in the City of Richmond during the tobacco retailer moratorium period. Both locations have operated in good standing for well over a decade and historically maintained valid tobacco retailer licenses.

As Council prepares for the second reading of the Tobacco Retailer License ordinance, I respectfully request consideration of narrowly tailored “legacy eligibility” language that would allow longstanding, compliant locations to maintain eligibility for a Tobacco Retailer License notwithstanding an ownership change.

To be clear, I am not suggesting that tobacco permits become transferable. I understand and respect that most jurisdictions— including San Francisco under Health Code Article 19H—maintain strict non-transferability provisions. However, San Francisco also created a limited exception mechanism recognizing long-operating businesses. Under Section 19H.6, while permits themselves are not transferable, a new owner may apply for a permit if the prior operator held a permit for a defined period (5+ years, and in some cases 10+ years), thereby allowing continuity of legacy establishments without undermining broader public health goals.

This framework does not weaken enforcement. Instead, it creates a narrowly tailored pathway that:

•

Preserves stability for longstanding neighborhood-serving businesses

•

Protects investments made in good faith

•

Maintains compliance requirements and oversight

•

Avoids treating decades-old establishments as entirely “new” retailers
For Richmond, a similar provision could read:
“A location that has held a valid Tobacco Retailer License in good standing for ten (10) or more consecutive years shall remain eligible to apply for a Tobacco Retailer License upon a change of ownership, notwithstanding any cap, density restriction, or moratorium, provided the use remains substantially the same and the prior license was not revoked for cause.”
Such language would strike an appropriate balance between advancing public health objectives and recognizing legacy small businesses that have responsibly operated for many years.

I fully support the City’s efforts to reduce youth access and thoughtfully regulate tobacco retail. My request is simply that longstanding, compliant businesses—particularly those acquired during the moratorium in good faith—are not unintentionally eliminated through ownership transition alone.

I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further prior to second reading.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
[Gurpartap Singh]
[nelson liquors & A&M liquor]
[2329 Macdonald ave & 3717 wall ave Richmond]
[925-724-8010]
[[email protected]]
From: Liz Hendrix
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Eduardo Martinez; Jamelia Brown; Cesar Zepeda; Doria Robinson; Soheila Bana; Sue Wilson; Claudia Jimenez Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item #P2 Tobacco Retailer License Amendments Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 2:44:33 PM
Attachments: Outlook-American C.png
ACS CAN Letter of Concern Richmond TRL Amendments.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor Martinez, Vice Mayor Robinson, and esteemed Members of the City Council, The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) commends the city of Richmond for updating certain provisions in the city’s new Tobacco Retailer License (TRL) in Chapter 7.106 of the city's municipal code, however, we have strong concerns regarding some of the amendments. Specifically, ACS CAN is concerned with:

The amendment to allow for the sale of flavored shisha, thereby rolling back provisions in Richmond's current TRL prohibiting the sale of ALL flavored tobacco
products
The lack of license suspension and revocation after multiple violations of a TRL Certain definitions used in the ordinance, specifically the definitions of "Tobacco Product", Flavored Tobacco Product", "Characterizing Flavor" and "Drug Store".

We urge the Council to revisit these issues before approving the amendments to Chapter 7.106 of the city's municipal code and ensure that the amendments follow best practices for tobacco prevention.

Best,
Liz Hendrix
Liz Hendrix | She/Her
Government Relations Director, Northern California
916.504.2470
Sacramento, CA
fightcancer.org | 1.800.227.2345
Liz Hendrix | Government Relations Director
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Inc.

PO Box 660175
Sacramento, CA 95866
Phone: -
fightcancer.org
This message (including any attachments) is intended exclusively for the individual to whom it is addressed and may contain proprietary, protected, or confidential information. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to read, print, copy, or disseminate this message or any part of it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.

February 24, 2026

The Honorable City Council
City of Richmond
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond CA 94804

Dear Honorable City Council Members,

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network’s (ACS CAN) mission is to end suffering and death from cancer for everyone, and we are committed to advancing that mission in Richmond.

ACS CAN commends the city of Richmond for updating certain provisions in the city’s new Tobacco Retailer License (TRL) in Chapter 7.106 of the municipal code, however, we have strong concerns regarding some of the amendments. Specifically, ACS CAN is concerned that the new ordinance weakens the city’s existing TRL by allowing for the sale of flavored shisha, thereby rolling back the strong provision in current city law prohibiting the sale of ALL flavored tobacco products. Ending the sale of all flavored tobacco products – including shisha – is critical to preventing youth tobacco use, as flavors play a key role in youth initiation and continued use of tobacco products.

Additionally, ACS CAN asks that the council require the suspension and revocation of a retailer’s license after multiple violations of the TRL in addition to the graduated fines that are included in the ordinance. License suspension and revocation are recommended as a best practice after multiple violations of a TRL. For recommended language, please see page 17 in the Public Health Law Center’s model comprehensive Tobacco Retailer Licensing Ordinance.

Finally, ACS CAN is concerned about the consistency and efficacy of certain definitions used in the ordinance. Specifically, we recommend that the Council adopt new definitions in line with recommended language in the above model ordinance, including, but not limited to: “Tobacco Product”, “Flavored Tobacco Product” (and remove the definition for “Characterizing Flavor”), and “Pharmacy” (instead of “Drug Store”).

We thank you for your leadership on this issue and respectfully urge you to reconsider the proposed amendments noted in this letter. ACS CAN looks forward to continuing to work with the Council on this important matter.

Sincerely,

Liz Hendrix
Government Relations Director, Northern California
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network

From: Amy Ukena
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 5:48:50 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Pamela Christian,
My name is Amy Ukena and I live at 15 Scenic Ave in Point Richmond.

In fact, I live directly below Terrace Avenue, where I
am frequently disturbed by shouting, laughing, screaming, cars squealing down the street, loud music and other loud noises,

all
occuring after midnight.

I am very concerned for the safety of the
people in the cars that are frequently parked there during the late night hours, as well as the safety of those who live around that block.

I am writing to ask that the FLOCK cameras be turned back on, and that the City of Richmond uses the information for its own purposes and NOT to be turned over to ICE or Border agents, or any outside entities.

Our citizens must be protected from those
who do harm to others, whether

they are civilians or ICE agents.

It is my understanding that the City Council will be meeting on this issue tomorrow.

Please let them know that those of us who
live in the area strongly support the use of cameras and drones for this purpose.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Amy Ukena
15 Scenic Ave, Apt B
Richmond CA 94801
From: Brian Hofer
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment - Item W.1 - Flock contract proposal Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:57:32 PM
Attachments: cRichmond CC re Flock 3-2-26.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Clerk,
Please see our attached letter, submitted as public comment for Item W.1 - Flock contract.

Brian Hofer
Executive Director
----------------------------------------------
Cell: (510) 303-2871
X personal:

@b_haddy
X org:

@securejustice
Bluesky personal:

brianhofer.bsky.social
Bluesky org: @securejustice.bsky.social
Tik Tok org: @secure.justice
San Francisco Bay Area, CA
secure-justice.org

Hofer bio
Donate to Secure Justice

March 3, 2026

VIA EMAIL ONLY
Mayor Martinez [email protected]
Hon. Brown [email protected]
Hon. Zepeda [email protected]
Hon. Robinson [email protected]
Hon. Bana [email protected]
Hon. Wilson [email protected]
Hon. Jimenez [email protected]
Richmond City Council

RE: Item W.1 – Flock Contract

Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

I write in opposition to Item W.1 on this evening’s agenda. Secure Justice urges the city take the following actions:

• Reject the proposed contract amendment and possible expansion with Flock Safety. • Direct staff to immediately shut down and disable all Flock systems currently in use. • Direct the Richmond Police Department (“RPD”) to terminate all relationships with Flock Safety and remove all equipment.
• Direct RPD to solicit alternative vendors (or alternatives to surveillance technology) through a transparent process.

This is not a “pro-” or “anti-police” position. It is a pro-public safety, pro-governance, and pro- accountability position. The city’s legal exposure is significant under SB 34, due to RPD’s unlawful data sharing practices.

A. Yesterday, we received a large document production in response to our public record requests pertaining to Richmond’s use of Flock ALPR. Although we have just begun to examine the records, we have identified more than 2,700 non-California agencies with whom RPD illegally shared ALPR information with tens of thousands of times, in violation of SB 34.

B. Your current ALPR contract with Flock authorizes Flock to share your local data, at Flock’s discretion (see Section 4.1).

C. RPD’s agenda proposal contains almost no references to any of the ‘red flag’ information below pertaining to Flock that has been widely reported, demonstrating that RPD lacks good judgment.

City of Richmond
Flock Contract

Page 2 of 6 ends

Taken together, these actions demonstrate that the City of Richmond does not value data security, state law, your own use policy, nor the privacy of individuals within your city limits.

1. Flock Safety Has Become a National Public Safety and Liability Problem

Over the past year, Flock Safety has become one of the most controversial surveillance vendors in the country. Increasingly, cities and counties are learning the hard way that these systems create mass surveillance infrastructure with weak oversight, unclear governance, and extraordinary mission creep.

Flock’s marketing is built around fear-based claims and exaggerated efficacy promises. But public agencies are left holding the bag when the program results in:

• stalking incidents,
• abuse by insiders,
• civil rights complaints,
• cybersecurity risk,
• and community backlash.

RPD’s proposal to extend this contract and expand the scope ignores these now well-documented and escalating risks.

2. Flock Has a History of Ethical Misrepresentation and Misleading Trial Programs

Flock Safety is not merely a vendor selling equipment. It is a corporation that has repeatedly been accused of:

• aggressively deploying “trial programs” designed to bypass procurement rules, • misleading communities and elected officials about data access and data sharing, especially with federal immigration agencies,
• using marketing language that minimizes the surveillance impact, • and downplaying the true scope of their “network.”

In short: this is not a vendor Richmond should trust with sensitive location data.

A contract extension rewards and entrenches this behavior.

3. Cybersecurity Risk: Centralized Surveillance Databases Are High-Value Targets; Flock Technology Is Unsecured

RPD’s request treats this as a routine vendor contract amendment, and possible expansion and/or renewal It is not.

ALPR databases are extremely sensitive because they contain geolocation intelligence about residents, visitors, witnesses, journalists, attorneys, activists, and political targets. Any centralized surveillance platform is an obvious hacking target.

City of Richmond
Flock Contract

Page 3 of 6 ends

Flock’s product is not merely a camera. It is a cloud-based intelligence system that invites:

• unauthorized access,
• credential theft,
• insider abuse,
• vendor-side mishandling,
• and exposure through third parties.

The city cannot realistically guarantee the security of a system that relies on a private corporation’s backend, contractors, and subcontractors.

This is a governance problem, not just an IT problem.

4. Data Sharing: Flock’s Business Model Encourages Network Expansion and Mission Creep

Flock Safety markets its product as a “network.” That is not a neutral design choice. It is a business strategy: the company benefits as more agencies join, share, and cross-query data.

This creates the predictable outcome that ALPR data collected locally can become effectively regional or national intelligence – and not just from federal immigration agencies. Red states that have criminalized reproductive and gender affirming care are presently seeking data on their own residents that drive to California in search of health care criminalized in their own state.

Even if Richmond intends limited use today, contract extensions normalize and expand a surveillance ecosystem that becomes increasingly difficult to control or unwind later. Your history with Flock demonstrates that any intent to limit use is meaningless in practice.

5. Federal Entanglement: Richmond Should Not Build a System That Can Be Co-Opted

Recent events show that surveillance infrastructure can be commandeered or redirected once it exists.

As GovTech recently reported, the Washington, D.C. Metro Police Department is now facing a federal takeover scenario that illustrates how local governments can lose control over surveillance systems, real-time crime centers, and public safety infrastructure under shifting political administrations.

Richmond is actively building and expanding surveillance capabilities through its own real-time coordination structures. Extending Flock’s contract increases the risk that Richmond’s surveillance infrastructure could later be:

• commandeered,
• compelled,
• redirected,
• or integrated into federal priorities that Alameda residents and policymakers do not support.

City of Richmond
Flock Contract

Page 4 of 6 ends

The City Council should not gamble on the assumption that future federal administrations will respect Richmond’s values.

6. ICE, Federal Agencies, and “Backdoor Access” Concerns Are Not Resolved

Flock Safety has faced major scrutiny for enabling federal access and federal-style intelligence use cases, including immigration enforcement concerns.

Even where Flock claims it has “changed policies,” the reality is:

• independent verification is limited,
• transparency is minimal,
• and public agencies cannot reliably audit vendor-side access.

The City Council should assume that once the data exists in a private corporate system, it is subject to future repurposing, future policy changes, and future legal demands.

This is especially dangerous given today’s political climate and the renewed weaponization of surveillance against vulnerable populations.

7. Overseas Contractors and Third-Party Review Risks

Surveillance vendors increasingly rely on third-party contractors and outsourced labor to review data, improve machine learning models, or provide support services, undermining Flock and law enforcement’s statements that all local data will remain local, under local control.

The city should not assume that all sensitive Richmond ALPR data is strictly handled by sworn personnel. The vendor ecosystem frequently includes:

• outsourced support operations,
• overseas labor,
• private contractors,
• and subcontractors with unclear accountability.

If the city cannot guarantee strict limitations on who may access and process ALPR data, the city should not operate the program at all.

8. Private Investigators and Secondary Use of ALPR Data

ALPR systems are attractive not only to law enforcement, but also to private investigators and other private-sector actors seeking location intelligence.

A responsible public agency should not build an intelligence database that could become useful to:
• civil litigants,
• corporate investigators,
• stalkers,
City of Richmond
Flock Contract

Page 5 of 6 ends

• bounty hunters,
• political operatives,
• or private surveillance actors.

The existence of the database is the risk.

9. Contract Terms Often Give Flock Discretion to Share or Use Data

One of the most dangerous aspects of vendor surveillance contracting is that contract language frequently allows the vendor broad discretion to:

• share data under certain circumstances,
• “improve services,”
• “analyze data,”
• or otherwise use collected information.

Even when agencies believe they have strong terms, vendors routinely reserve expansive rights in their underlying policies, technical architecture, or “network” functionality.

The city should not authorize a contract extension unless it can state—clearly, publicly, and in writing—that:

• Flock has no discretion to share Richmond data,
• Richmond can fully audit access,
• and Richmond retains meaningful control.

If the city cannot provide those guarantees, the City Council must reject the extension. Based on public records requests for Flock contracts from many California agencies that we have analyzed, we found that more than 85% of California municipalities have authorized Flock to share local data with any third party, at Flock’s discretion – including the City of Richmond (Section 4.1).

10. Flock Has Lost Dozens of Contracts Nationwide

Over the past year, Flock has lost a growing number of contracts across the country—often after public backlash, media investigations, cybersecurity concerns, or governance failures.

By our count, the number of confirmed terminated, suspended, or rejected Flock deployments now exceeds 40 jurisdictions in roughly the past year.

This is not a “few activists complaining.” This is a national trend: elected bodies are realizing that Flock is a politically and legally toxic vendor whose business model conflicts with democratic oversight.

Richmond should not double down while other jurisdictions are pulling the plug, including Santa Cruz, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Windsor, and Santa Clara County.

City of Richmond
Flock Contract

Page 6 of 6 ends

11. Liability Warning

This letter is notice as to Richmond’s legal exposure and obligations. We are presently litigating such claims against neighboring jurisdictions, and we intend to litigate the same with Richmond.

As you likely know, misuse of ALPR data creates extraordinary civil liability under a few different laws, including SB 34. Even if the city believes it has internal controls, the vendor’s network design increases the risk of unlawful access, unauthorized queries, and data misuse.

If the city extends this contract despite these warnings, it will be difficult to later claim the city was unaware of the foreseeable harms, including the harm posed by RPD’s use of Flock ALPR since the city began using the technology.

RPD has violated state law SB 34 tens of thousands of times by making its data available to more than 2700 non-California agencies, and this is but one type of violation – there are more. In addition to authorizing attorney’s fees recovery to a prevailing party, SB 34 provides for an award of actual damages or a statutory penalty of $2,500 per violation.

14. Conclusion

Richmond has a choice:

• continue down the path of expanding mass surveillance infrastructure through a vendor with mounting national controversy and instability, and increasing your legal exposure, or
• take the responsible path now—reject the extension, terminate the relationship, and pursue alternatives that do not require building a long-term location intelligence database.

We urge the City Council to reject the contract extension, direct staff to disable and remove all Flock systems, and solicit alternatives through a transparent and accountable procurement process.

Sincerely,

Brian Hofer
Executive Director
(510) 303-2871
[email protected]
https://secure-justice.org/
San Francisco Bay Area

From: Cecil Calban
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comment Item W1 03/03/26
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 9:42:37 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Please vote YES on solution A and do SOMETHING to protect our neighborhood.

We had finally got to a point where we would ONCE IN A WHILE get a full night's sleep and sometimes not have dumping everywhere we walk, when you announce that we are the city that won't cooperate with our neighbors.

I am not buying that we are safer as when criminals are encouraged

to cross the road into
Richmond

in order to evade being stopped.

My family came here long before Doria Robinson, Claudia

Jimenez and Cesar Zepada and
Sue Wilson were born. How about protecting my family of

POC. I worked

like an animal for
decades to fix up my house in Point Richmond. Now the gunshots rain on a regular basis.

If you think that the people of Richmond don't want this passive

policing, have the integrity to
put it on the ballot and let us vote.

These cameras are a good solution
From: Dakota Semler
To: Eduardo Martinez; Cesar Zepeda; Soheila Bana; Jamelia Brown; Doria Robinson; Claudia Jimenez; Sue Wilson Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1: Please Vote YES on Option A – Extend Richmond’s Flock Safety Cameras for 3 years Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:01:39 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Richmond City Council,
I am writing as a small business owner and taxpayer in Richmond to respectfully urge you to vote YES on Option A and extend the Flock Safety camera program for at least three years.

This conversation must begin with a fundamental truth: public safety is not a privilege — it is something every person in Richmond deserves. Every family. Every worker. Every senior. Every small business owner. Every neighborhood.

The safety cameras work, and the numbers prove it. Since being installed in 2023 solely to address crime, Flock Safety cameras have delivered documented, measurable results right here in Richmond:
• 274 arrests linked to criminal investigations
• 259 stolen vehicles recovered
• 41 stolen license plates recovered
• 911 criminal investigations assisted
Police have also reported that license-plate reader data has helped identify suspect vehicles in homicide investigations and generate hundreds of investigative leads. And when the cameras were paused late last year, Richmond saw a 33% surge in vehicle thefts — a stark reminder of what is at stake when these tools go dark. And we had the first large side show in Richmond in months in the Point in the early morning hours at Cutting and Canal, lasting for over an hour because our severely understaffed police department were on a priority 1 call.

This matters because the Richmond Police Department is already operating at a severe disadvantage. After being defunded twice, the department averages roughly 100 active sworn officers — nearly 50% below its authorized 147 positions, and nearly half of the ~200 positions they had when it earned national recognition under the Obama administration for community policing excellence. You simply cannot sustain that level of understaffing without compromising public safety or adapting. These cameras are not a luxury — they are a force multiplier that helps an understaffed department do more.

Beyond the numbers, I want to address a concern I hear in our community directly: these cameras have not been used to deport immigrants or residents. Those are the facts! They are investigative tools, not surveillance systems. They only capture full license plates and vehicle characteristics only. They do not capture faces, do not use facial recognition, and do not collect immigration information. That distinction matters, and it should be stated clearly and on the record.

Public safety is also economic survival. Businesses will not stay — and new ones will not come — where safety is uncertain. We have watched what happened in Oakland, where public safety challenges accelerated business closures and economic decline. Richmond cannot afford that trajectory. Our local businesses are the backbone of this community, and we deserve the stability to thrive.

We also cannot ignore geography. A community is only as safe as its neighbors. When surrounding East Bay cities are connected through coordinated camera networks and ALPR systems but Richmond is not, criminals simply relocate to the gap. They exploit the weakest link. That is why the East Bay must function as a unified public safety network — not a collection of isolated islands.

To ensure this program earns and keeps the community's trust, I also urge the Council to:

Keep the program — vote to continue safety cameras so investigators have the timely leads they need to identify offenders and protect residents.

Publish strict safeguards — written access rules, limited 30-day data retention (current practice),
Establish oversight that actually works — independent review of monthly audit logs provided by Chief Simmons to CPRC, and clear public reporting so this community can hold this program accountable.

Public safety and civil liberties are not in conflict. With the right oversight, they reinforce each other.

For all of these reasons, I respectfully ask the Council to support Richmond residents, families, seniors, and small businesses by voting YES on Option A and extending the Flock Safety camera program for at least three years.

Thank you for your service to our community and for your careful consideration.

Respectfully,
Dakota Semler
From: Devin Whittemore
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Fwd: Public comment item W1 re: Flock cameras
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 2:30:16 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear City Clerk,
Can you please include this public comment for the formal record? Thank you.

Devin
Begin forwarded message:

From: Devin Whittemore <[email protected]>
Subject: Public comment item W1 re: Flock cameras
Date: March 3, 2026 at 2:27:30 PM PST
To: Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>, Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>, Soheila Bana
<[email protected]>, Jamelia Brown
<[email protected]>, Doria Robinson
<[email protected]>, Claudia Jimenez
<[email protected]>, Sue Wilson
<[email protected]>
Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am a parent raising children in Richmond, and I am writing to urge you to vote YES on Option A and extend the Flock safety camera program for several years.

Ten months is woefully insufficient and inefficient and we’ll all be right back here rehashing the same thing.

Every morning I send my kids out the door, I think about the kind of city they are growing up in. I want them to grow up in a Richmond that is safe, strong, and thriving. These cameras are part of making that possible.

The results speak for themselves. Since installation in 2023, Flock cameras have supported 911 criminal investigations, helped recover 259 stolen vehicles and 41 stolen license plates, and contributed to 274 arrests. Officers have used license-plate reader data to generate investigative leads in homicide cases. When the program was paused, vehicle thefts spiked 33%.

Our Police Department is operating at nearly 50% below authorized staffing. As a parent, that number is alarming. These cameras don't replace officers — but they give the officers we have better information, faster. That means quicker response, stronger cases, and more accountability for those who harm our community.

I've also heard concerns about immigration surveillance. I want to be clear: the facts do not support that fear. These cameras capture license plates and vehicle characteristics only. They do not use facial recognition. They do not collect immigration data. There have been no documents cases demonstrating that they were used to deport anyone in CA. Our children deserve both safety and a community that protects everyone's rights — and this program, done right, does both.

Please vote YES on Option A but extend it for several years.

Maintain the existing 30-day data retention, support CPRC review of the monthly audit reports, and give Richmond families the tools and transparency they deserve.

Everyone deserves public safety. EVERYONE.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Devin
From: Elizabeth Rico
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:49:43 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Since the website will not allow me to comment, I am sending my response via email.

While I appreciate the Police Chief's quick action to disable FLOCK as soon as he felt the community might be in danger, and I understand that modifications have been made to prevent data sharing with ICE, I am against renewing the contract with FLOCK.

FLOCK is storing data on Amazon Web Services. Amazon, which is shamelessly funding the Trump administration, even as Trump ILLEGALLY declares war (his words, not mine) on Iran. The same Amazon that was selling fake ICE gear so that people could terrorize immigrant communities. The very same Amazon that has no idea how high volumes of child abuse images wound up in its AI training data. Amazon, a company so hell-bent on becoming the only place Americans shop that they consistently disregard the rights of workers, sellers, and even customers.

There has to be a better way.

Safety and security are important. Police should take advantage of technological advances to help solve crimes, or, better yet, prevent them. However, partnering with companies that clearly lack a moral compass is a disservice to the people of Richmond. We did not build ships to fight fascism abroad so that we could bow down to it at home.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth
District 2
From: Gene Harris
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 4:17:36 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I am a Richmond resident.

I support for Option A, bringing back the Flock cameras.

Eugenia Harris
1301 Quarry Ct. #213
Richmond, CA 94801
From: Isabella Silverman
To: Eduardo Martinez; Cesar Zepeda; Soheila Bana; Jamelia Brown; Doria Robinson; Claudia Jimenez; Sue Wilson Cc: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Item W1 - Vote YES on Option A and Extend Richmond’s Flock Safety Cameras for a 3-year minimum
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:40:33 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Richmond City Council,
I am writing as a Richmond resident who has watched this city grow, struggle, and fight to become something better.

I am urging you to vote yes on Option A and extend the Flock safety camera program for at least three to five years. We can’t keep spending valuable staff, council and public time re-assessing the same thing over and over.

Every person in Richmond deserves to feel safe. Every family walking to school. Every senior running errands. Every worker coming home late.

Public safety is not a political issue — it is a basic human need, and right now our community is not getting enough of it.

The cameras are making a measurable difference. Since 2023, Flock Safety cameras have helped deliver real results for Richmond residents, per the agenda report:
274 arrests linked to criminal investigations;
259 stolen
vehicles recovered;
41 stolen license plates recovered and
911 criminal
investigations assisted.

These are not abstract statistics — they represent real victims who got justice, real families who got their cars back, real neighbors who are safer.

When the cameras were paused late last year, we felt it immediately:
a
massive sideshow at Cutting and Canal that lasted over an hour and a 33%
surge in vehicle thefts.

Our Police Department is already stretched dangerously thin — roughly 100 active officers against 147 authorized positions. These cameras are not a replacement for officers. They are a tool that helps the officers we have work smarter and faster.

I also want to be direct about something I hear neighbors worrying about:
these cameras have not been used against immigrants. They capture license plates and vehicle characteristics only — no faces, no facial recognition, no immigration data. Let's be honest about what these tools are and what they are not.

And we need to protect our small businesses and ensure their safety and long-term viability. We do not want what happened in Oakland to happen hear.

I urge the Council to vote YES on Option A, publish strict safeguards, maintain 30-day data retention, and support the independent oversight process Chief Simmons has proposed with the CPRC. Richmond deserves safe streets and trustworthy, accountable tools to protect them.

Thank you for your time and your service to our community.

Respectfully,
Isabella
From: jan diamond
To: City Clerk Dept User; Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 2:35:38 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I urge you to reinstate the FLOCK license plate reader system and CCTV systems, with the caveat that they will not share info with ICE or the federal government.

Thank you
Jan Diamond
--
From: Jeffrey Vines
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Jeffrey Vines; Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:39:01 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear City Council members,
We are in full agreement with reactivating the Flock CCTV System, Flock Drone as a First Responder Program, and the Flock Automated License Plate Reader System.

Our First Responder teams including the Richmond Police Department should have access to the latest technology in the effort to respond to crimes, accidents and emergencies.

Public safety should be our highest priority and the reasonable use of these critical tools should be available to all Richmond First Responders.

Thank you for your consideration.

Jeff and Lynne Vines
From: Jeffrey Bruton
To: City Clerk Dept User; Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 10:50:58 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The City of Richmond SHOULD reactivate Flock immediately.

I’ve been in the IT business for 44 years. I understand, appreciate, and acknowledge the potential risks inherent in a surveillance system should that system be abused or accessed by unauthorized parties.

I am a strong proponent of privacy laws and vigorously support the 4 th Amendment.

I’m familiar with the area, I first purchased a condo in Marina Bay in 1988.

Richmond has historically high crime rates compared to the national average and these crimes are often concentrated in specific areas.

The budget for public safety in Richmond has moved millions away from police and into ONS, Youthworks, and community response teams. This is not a bad decision but it limits officer staffing levels.

There is no expectation of privacy in public, this is not a valid argument.

That Flock has the ability to communicate in real time with adjacent jurisdictions is a huge benefit and must logically assist in apprehending criminals during or after a crime has been committed.

If the crux of the anti-Flock argument is fear that Federal entities will access this data for immigration enforcement, my suggestion is that the council create a succinctly worded policy that it will not allow access to the cameras or the ALPR data to anyone other than Bay Area/adjacent law enforcement agencies.

On the other hand, if Flock will not sign a service level agreement/contract that specifically states that the stored data is secure from third-parties, the city should actively seek a different vendor/provider for an ALPR platform and do so in conjunction with other Bay Area jurisdictions.

Respectfully,
Jeff Bruton
12 Crest Ave.

Richmond, CA 94801

From: JOSEPH BELLEW
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Flock cameras
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 8:12:27 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Good evening my neighbor sent me an email saying it would be a great idea supported by our local law enforcement to turn the flock cameras back on I have lived in point Richmond since July 1999 I love the town in the community while I don’t normally get very actively involved, I would urge you to seriously make this happen thank you kindly sincerely, Joe Bellew
15 Scenic avenue D Point Richmond
Sent from my iPhone
From: Kathleen Cosby
To: City Clerk Dept User; Cesar Zepeda; Timothy Simmons Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 1:14:27 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I live in Point Richmond, and want to voice my support for our Police Department and for

OPTION A -

the Flock camera systems to be put back into use (Flock CCTV System, Flock Drone as a First Responder Program, and the Flock Automated License Plate Reader System).

Our police department and the City of Richmond can work together to ensure the privacy and integrity of the data the system captures.

We have another camera system a stones' throw from Richmond - the Richmond-San Rafael license plate toll readers. If you believe that Flock is a surveillance system, isn't it fair to say that the Richmond-San Rafael toll plaza cameras should be also be questioned? If you say the difference is the agency or overseers of that data, you are telling me that you believe that our City is not capable of using technology for efficiency and for safety. This would make me question what else we are not capable of doing under your leadership.

I ask our City Council to operate from a place of leadership, and not from a place of fear.

When you narrowly characterize the Flock Cameras and similar technology as being used primarily for mal intent, you perpetuate fear of technology, and fear of data misuse in your citizens. Instead I ask you to lead by demonstrating that the City of Richmond can be good stewards of these systems and use them to reduce crime in the city.

Our police need all the help they can get. Their hands are full and they currently don't seem to have your full support.

They need your support and your collaboration. Please bring back the Flock technology, and then ensure the citizens of Richmond hear from both the Police and yourselves on the statistics, and how the tools are working. This is the best way to model for the youth and all people of Richmond that we can be a city that leverages technology for good, AND that keeps a wise, informed eye on what the tools deliver.

We recently had a giant sideshow in Richmond. With gunfire, fireworks, and maybe around a hundred-plus participants. Could Flock technology have helped? Can it help going forward? Please focus on wise, thoughtful discussions and reasonable decisions that respect the needs of the Police. Lead the way through this. Our youth and our citizens are watching and listening. Be big, be forward-looking, and show that the City of Richmond can utilize technology for the good of all in Richmond.

Kathleen Cosby
415-515-2386
Laura Hill
Vice President of Public Policy
c: 314-956-4425
The Historic Klamath, Pier 9, The
Embarcadero
www.bayareacouncil.org

From: Laura Hill
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments agenda item #W.1
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 10:21:17 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png

03.03.26 LoS Flock Safety Richmond.pdf
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Richmond City Clerk,
On behalf of the Bay Area Council and the more than 370 local employers we represent, please find the attached letter in support of the Flock Safety Contract Extension (Option A) - File #1192, Item W.1 on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, March 3, 2026.

Should you have any questions or if you would like further

information on our support position, please
contact me at [email protected].

Thank you so much.

P. 415.946.8777 Bay Area Council Bay Area Council Bay Area Council www.bayareacouncil.org The Historic Klamath 30 Fountain Alley 1215 K Street, Suite 2220 Pier 9, The Embarcadero San Jose, CA 95113 Sacramento, CA 95814 San Francisco, CA 94111

March 3, 2026

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Members of the Richmond City Council
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804

Re: SUPPORT for File #1192 – Flock Safety Contract Extension (Option A)

Mayor Martinez and Members of the Richmond City Council,

On behalf of the Bay Area Council, representing more than 370 of the region’s largest employers, I am writing in strong support of File #1192 - Flock Safety Contract Extension, Item W.1 on the City Council agenda for Tuesday, March 3. Specifically, the Bay Area Council is supportive of contract extension Option A, which reinstates the Flock Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) system and allows the city to continue the Flock Closed- Circuit Television (CCTV) system and Flock Drone as a First Responder (DFR) program.

Approval of the Flock Safety Contract Extension (Option A) is an essential step toward improving public safety and revitalizing Richmond’s economy.

For 80 years, the Bay Area Council has engaged business and civic-minded leaders to solve the most challenging local issues to ensure the Bay Area is the most innovative, sustainable, inclusive, and globally competitive region it can be. Nowhere is that collaboration needed more right now than in the East Bay, where cities have been slow to recover post-pandemic and crime challenges persist. In response, the Bay Area Council built a strong coalition of over 100 employers who are based in or otherwise do business in the East Bay who are deeply invested in the future of the region and have been advocating for public safety and economic development improvements.

The Bay Area Council’s East Bay coalition is strongly supportive of the use of safety technology – implemented with appropriate safeguards – to enhance public safety in the region. And camera networks have become one of the region’s most effective crime-fighting tools, particularly in cities like Richmond facing persistent law enforcement staffing challenges. Technology like ALPR, CCTV, and DFR helps officers identify suspects faster, connect cases, and provide prosecutors with stronger evidence. These systems both deter crime and make it possible to hold repeat offenders accountable, helping to keep momentum toward a safer and more vibrant city.

Flock Safety’s ALPR cameras, DFR program, and CCTV system are proven tools in identifying stolen vehicles, tracking suspects in violent crimes, and recovering lost or stolen property. According to Richmond Police Department reporting, it is one of the most effective

crime-fighting technologies that the Richmond PD currently has. For example, since the deactivation of the Flock ALPR system last November, vehicle thefts have increased approximately 33%.

Cities across the region, including San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, San Leandro, Alameda, and Piedmont, have deployed Flock Safety cameras with positive results.

Richmond deserves equal access to the same evidence-based tools that support effective policing. Approving this contract will allow Richmond PD to extend its investigative reach, operate more efficiently, and continue advancing its commitment to community safety.

It is for these reasons that the Bay Area Council requests your support of the Flock Safety Contract Extension option that reinstates Flock ALPR cameras in Richmond and continues the CCTV system and DFR program. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this position, please contact Laura Hill, Vice President of Public Policy, at [email protected]. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

John Grubb
Interim President and CEO
Bay Area Council

From: lindsey anne
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:43:49 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Richmond City Council,
I’m writing to oppose the RPD’s request to reactivate the Flock CCTV system, Drone as First Responder program, and Automated License Plate Reader system in Richmond.

These tools significantly expand surveillance in our community without clear evidence that they meaningfully improve public safety. Broad, persistent monitoring raises serious concerns about privacy, data retention, misuse, and disproportionate impact on marginalized residents.

Once this infrastructure is in place, it is difficult to scale back, and oversight often lags behind deployment.

Public safety matters deeply, but it should not come at the cost of constant surveillance. I urge the Council to reject this request and instead prioritize investments in community-based strategies that address root causes of harm.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thanks,
Lindsey Anne
Point Richmond, CA
From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 8:12:26 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Mayor and City Council,

Please vote to approve public safety cameras. They are an effective and accountable crime- fighting tool which we need here in Richmond. They should be a part of any holistic approach to public safety. Other sanctuary cities use them, including Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco.

They record license plates only in designated crime hot spots. They do not capture faces or private activity. The city and RPD, not Flock, control all data and access. They help recover stolen vehicles and support violent crime investigations. Nothing is shared with ICE or the feds.

Especially to those of you running for mayor or council reelection who claim public safety as a key platform issue, your vote to turn the cameras back on will show you mean what you say…that you are concerned with residents’ safety and minimizing crime.

Thank you.

Mindy Pines
25 Idaho Street
Richmond 94801
Sent from iPhone,

so excuse the typos
Mindy Pines
http://instagram.com/messageframer
From: Paige Tashner
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 1:40:59 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello!
As a resident of the Point Richmond Neighborhood, I would like to voice my support for OPTION A.

By reactivating the FLOCK cameras, and using them in a responsible manner, I hope they will assist the Richmond Police Department in creating safer communities.

We have seen an increase in suspected drug activity and prostitution with the accompanying increase in speeding cars, garbage and theft
Perhaps the FLOCK cameras would create a deterrent to this behavior.

Thank you.

Paige Tashner
333 Tunnel Avenue
From: Paula H
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 11:27:37 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I am concerned about the Flock camera systems. I do not want the information these cameras capture to be shared with ICE or CBP. Currently, there is no way to know about or stop the sharing of information as the Flock company can and have done it.

I know that CCTV cameras can deter crime and help catch perpetrators

and I appreciate that
that can have a positive effect for a city and a community. But we don't have a regulatory commision to conduct oversight and set up regulations to prevent the sharing of this data. I do not believe we can expect companies to self-regulate. This stuff needs serious regulation and intense oversight.

Cities are increasingly conducting audits and, in some cases, terminating contracts with Flock over concerns about unauthorized sharing with federal agencies, such as U.S. Border Patrol.

With that in mind maybe this isn't the time to install Flock cameras. I'd say get the regulations and oversight right before spending on these systems.

Thank you,
Paula Helene
Richmond, CA 94801
From: Philip Rosenthal
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Item W.1 Council meeting 03/03/2026
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 10:36:46 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Councilmembers,
Please reactivate and fully fund safety

cameras and drones to aid police with crime prevention.

Rolling out the red carpet to sideshows, dumping and criminal behavior is not

what

Richmond
taxpayers want.

Now that we can control the access

of the data to federal agencies, any humanitarian argument is moot.

Philip Rosenthal

This email contains confidential information and is intended for the recipient only.

If you are not the intended recipient, you should not use, reproduce, or distribute the email or its attachments If you receive this email in error, you should contact Philip Rosenthal and immediately delete the email and any attachments.

From: Royce Conner
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 9:18:28 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello! I will

keep this brief.

I am writing to share my strong support for Option A on the safety camera issue. These cameras are essential tools in keeping our city safe. I urge the City of Richmond to extend the Flock contract.

Sincerely,
Royce Conner
208 Water Street, Richmond
From: Sam Julian
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 4:16:52 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

The city of Richmond should immediately CANCEL its relationship with Flock cameras.

They have been shown to have
multiple dangerous security exploits. They are recording data even when they say they’re not, saving full environmental information on cameras that are purportedly only license plate readers, and leaving the data up on servers that are accessible to anyone with a
basic knowledge of tech exploits. Rather than address these concerns, Flock's leadership is ignoring legitimate safety and security concerns about what we are doing with our taxpayer dollars and
painting criticism as 'activist' alarmism. This kind of partisan politics has no place in governance. We should know what’s being done with our data before

handing
it over to a demonstrably unaccountable private company. In trying to undermine legitimate criticism, Flock has demonstrated they have no regard for the people they are purporting to serve. We should reject their business and utilize a service with more respect for their mission to protect and serve.

Sam Julian, Point Richmond
From: Shari Laster
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 7:07:55 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello,
I live in Richmond (ZIP: 94801) and as a resident I strongly disapprove of any continuation to the Flock contract. Community safety would be best served by investing funds in resources that serve the well-being of residents, not those that apply undifferentiated surveillance

to our
neighbors. The Richmond Police Department makes a number of assertions about the effectiveness of these methods but the evidence they provide is unconvincing that the technology in fact makes people safer -- they provide a few numbers but then assert that there is a causal relationship without providing statistically sound evidence.

While the intent to keep this data from federal immigration enforcement is admirable, the reality we face is that no contract terms can guarantee protection from data breaches. In the current environment, unfortunately there can be no promise made that leaked data would not be misused for ends that ultimately harm the Richmond community far more than the activities these systems claim to deter.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

- Shari Laster
From: TerriLahey
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 5:34:30 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Richmond Mayor and City Council Members:

Please vote to reactivate the Flock CCTV System, Flock Drone as a First Responder Program, and the Flock Automated License Plate Reader System in City of Richmond, using OPTION A.

Terri Lahey
Richmond Resident and Homeowner.

From: Tim Andrews
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: My Family Supports City Wide Safety Cameras
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 9:32:16 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello,

Please provide the Richmond City Council Email Address.

My Family supports city wide safety monitoring cameras. To support safety, Monitor and prevent crimes.

The only people who do not want city wide monitoring camera's are criminals!!! Thank you,
Tim A Tulare Ave., Richmond, CA. 94805
From: William Naiditch
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Item W.1 03/03/26 No on Flocker Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 12:02:32 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I would rather NOT give individuals with government powers the tools to suppress political opposition.

Yeah, yeah.

I understand there are those who would like to discredit this concern.

They praise Big Brother.

William
622 Western Dr. Richmond.

From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Reject Flock contracts
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 10:39:58 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
[You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

As a resident of Richmond I am emailing to voice my opposition in renewing any and all contracts with FLOCK Inc. There are many issues that have been raised about privacy violations and the misuse of personal data. Also, the way these cameras have been used by federal agencies to bring fear and endanger our community, especially our immigrant neighbors, is completely unacceptable. We need to make sure we follow other cities, like Santa Cruz and Mountain View, and end this practice of egregious surveillance. Let us support true community efforts that foster our relationships to each other vs continuing a system that sows distrust in our local government.

Thank you,
Yury Nakagawa
Richmond Resident
From: Alan Odom
To: Eduardo Martinez; Sue Wilson; Cesar Zepeda; Jamelia Brown; Doria Robinson; City Clerk Dept User Cc: Soheila Bana; Alan B. Odom; Simone Odom
Subject: La Moine Park (Cheese Park) Upgrades. W.3
Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 2:02:01 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor Martinez and Council Members,
Thank you for taking this with the consideration in which it was written.

District 4 Council Member Soheila Bana has
sponsored

an important item on the city
council agenda to make major improvements

to La Moine Park (Cheese Park);
Council Member, Claudia Jimenez is co-sponsoring this item.

As a lifelong resident of Richmond and El Sobrante, 27 years now in May Valley, we sincerely urge you to
ADOPT a resolution to DIRECT City staff to prepare a comprehensive work plan for improvements at Cheese Park (La Moine Park), including permanent restrooms, a drinking water fountain, playground restoration, safety fencing around the toddler area, completion of repainting started by volunteers, and the design of a children’s bike garden in collaboration with community partners such as Bike East Bay; and identify feasible funding sources in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026–27 Capital Improvement Program and operating budget process.

This park is used by ALL of Richmond residents, it is one of the crown jewels of parks Richmond enjoys and needs to be improved for the
safety and enjoyment of all your residents.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

We are writing to voice our support for Claudia Jimenez-Soheila Bana’s joint resolution to improve community access and services at Cheese Park at tonight’s city council meeting.

We are 20 year residents of Richmond and desperately need more local parks for families and community members to safely enjoy the outdoors and our neighborhood.

Please vote YES to get the ball rolling so Cheese Park isn’t just another unofficial, glorified dog park in the neighborhood. Thank you!
Appreciatively,
Lisa DeCastro and Joe DeFao
Sent from my iPhone
From: Marla Miyashiro
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comment on 3/3/26 Richmond City Council agenda item Date: Monday, March 2, 2026 9:03:09 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hi, I'm a Richmond resident who would like to express support for the following agenda item for the March 3, 2026, City Council meeting:
"ADOPT a resolution to DIRECT City staff to prepare a comprehensive work plan for improvements at Cheese Park (La Moine Park), including permanent restrooms, a drinking water fountain, playground restoration, safety fencing around the toddler area, completion of repainting started by volunteers, and the design of a children’s bike garden in collaboration with community partners such as Bike East Bay; and identify feasible funding sources in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026–27 Capital Improvement Program and operating budget process - Councilmember Soheila Bana (510- 672-3490) and Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-620-6565)." Cheese Park is an important recreation spot in my neighborhood, and I would love to see it get some improvements, especially permanent restrooms and consistently lit lamps along the paved path and around the play area at the eastern end of the park.

Thank you,
Marla Miyashiro
5119 Heavenly Ridge Ln.

Richmond, CA 94803
From: Sarah Tronnes
To: Sue Wilson; Eduardo Martinez; Cesar Zepeda; Jamelia Brown; Doria Robinson Cc: City Clerk Dept User; Soheila Bana
Subject: Cheese Park Improvements
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 6:16:04 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello,
I am writing as a resident of May Valley and a Richmond homeowner

who is very interested
in supporting the improvements at Cheese Park. I do support the addition of permanent

bathrooms, water fountains, painting, and safety improvements. However I do not support the bike garden.

I have young children who

use the toddler park but I'd prefer improvements to structures that can be used by older children and also

would like to preserve more of the green space at the
park.

In the future, I'd like to see a splash pad somewhere in the community for our hot summers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sarah Tronnes
From: Simone O
To: Eduardo Martinez; Sue Wilson; Cesar Zepeda; Jamelia Brown; Doria Robinson; City Clerk Dept User Subject: Re: La Moine Park (Cheese Park) Upgrades. W.3
Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2026 2:07:27 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor Martinez and Council Members,
Thank you for taking this with the consideration in which it was written.

District 4 Council Member Soheila Bana has
sponsored

an important item
on the city council agenda to make major improvements

to La Moine Park
(Cheese Park);

Council Member, Claudia Jimenez is co-sponsoring this
item.

As a lifelong resident of Richmond and El Sobrante, 27 years now in May Valley, we sincerely urge you to

ADOPT a resolution to DIRECT City staff
to prepare a comprehensive work plan for improvements at Cheese Park (La Moine Park), including permanent restrooms, a drinking water fountain, playground restoration, safety fencing around the toddler area, completion of repainting started by volunteers, and the design of a children’s bike garden in collaboration with community partners such as Bike East Bay; and identify feasible funding sources in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026–27 Capital Improvement Program and operating budget process.

This park is used by ALL of Richmond residents, it is one of the crown jewels of parks Richmond enjoys and needs to be improved for the

safety
and enjoyment of all your residents.

We see all the communities there with many sponsored events, the May Valley Community Center is located right across the street which provides for the events…
Please help and support this import item and provide funding for your 94803 residents, and beyond…
With gratitude,
Simone and Alan Odom
May Valley, Richmond
Portal  Search... 
Meeting Date
Agenda Item
Name
Email
Comment
Position
Status
Attachment
City Council
3/3/2026 5:00 PM Flock Safety ContractExtension Zia Bacca [email protected] I am for option A forever. Asa Latina, I am constantlysurprised how often the citycouncil tells me that it isimportant to protect peopleof color who might bevulnerable due to animperfect system, but not inneed of protection. And no,Eduardo Martinez, carsburning up tires andwatching Latina kids getkilled and paying millions toclean up after sideshow andliving in a dumping groundmight be be part of YOURculture, but MY Latinaheritage includes being agood neighbor andfollowing the law.

For Approved -
3/3/2026 5:00 PM OPEN FORUM FORPUBLIC COMMENT Kathleen (1) City Council membersare supported by *one*staff person for *all* ofthem (as I understand it).Some of the Chevronsettlement money should beutilized to hire additionalfull-time staff which willultimately meanconstituents are betterserved. (2) ArtificialIntelligence has, as SpencerOverton put it, “become acentral front in the struggleover American democracyand identity.” Richmondshould adopt the EquitableAI in Government Act (seeOverton’s “Ethnonationalismby Algorithm”).

For Approved -
3/4/26, 9:21 AM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 1/2 3/3/2026 5:00 PM Flock Safety ContractExtension Ann McIntire [email protected] I support proposition A anddon’t want you to wastetime with this every year. Isupport the cameras withnow that the city can controlwhat happens to the date.Ad for the argument thathey can be hacked, so canany computer.

For Approved -
3/3/2026 5:00 PM Flock Safety ContractExtension Sam Julian [email protected] The presentation doesn'tcare to show an examplephoto of the vehicle fromthe front is because thedriver's face would be visiblein the 'license platephotograph'. Saying thesystem doesn't track facesor demographic informationis meaningless, if the photoexists it can be used forthose purposes.

Against Approved -
3/4/26, 9:21 AM richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 2/2

Richmond City CouncilMarch 3, 2026

Richmond City Council
March 3, 2026