1 From: Betsy McClain
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 1:22 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12
Please pull items off consent. Switching to Axon does not solve the problem.
Betsy McClain
Belmont, CA
While I'm not a San Mateo resident, I do patronize shops, restaurants, medical and dental offices in San Mateo regularly.
1 From: Brian C <
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 1:52 PM
To: Alex Khojikian
Cc: Clerk
Subject: Oct 5 consent items 11 and 12: request to hold to Oct 19 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Good afternoon,
A short request about items 11 and 12 on tonight's consent calendar: would staff consider holding them to October 19, as staff did with an item on July 20? That date still meets the November 2 deadline for item 11, and Axon could be asked to extend its October 16 quote.
Whatever staff decides, I'd be grateful to know whether item 12 needs its own §3.60.070(h) finding.
Thank you,
Brian Cervenka
San Mateo resident, Sunnybrae
1 From: Catherine Bish
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 1:14 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda Items #11 and 12: Pull Items Off Consent, Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem
Dear City of San Mateo councilmembers and staff:
I'm writing to ask you to remove the agenda items regarding the City's response to the Grand Jury Report and the new ALPR contract proposal from the consent calendar. New and disturbing abuses of ALPR systems are reported in the news seemingly every day, and we cannot afford to waste City resources, expose the City to liability, or put the civil rights and liberties of community members at risk by rushing headlong into a new ALPR contract without allowing ample opportunities for community members to deliberate and provide feedback as part of this process.
Thank you,
Catherine Bish
1 From: Kim Woo
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 1:09 PM
To: Clerk
Cc: Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Lisa Diaz Nash; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Rob Newsom Subject: Agenda Items #11 and 12: Pull Items Off Consent - Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem
Good morning Honorable Councilmembers of San Mateo,
I am Kimberly Woo, and I serve as a Community Organizer for Services, Immigrant Rights and EducaƟon Network (SIREN). I have grown up in San Mateo my whole life, including aƩending Aragon High School and currently residing in District 5. I am a member of Safety Over Surveillance San Mateo County, or SOS-SMC, a local, volunteer-led collaboraƟve of privacy and community safety advocates. I am emailing to address San Mateo’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report and the proposal to enter a new ALPR contract. I respecƞully request that you please pull Items 11 and 12 off the consent calendar to give our community the opportunity to collaborate on efforts to keep us all safe.
As a proud Chinese Filipina daughter of immigrants, I have loved calling San Mateo my home due to the rich diversity, the intelligent creaƟvity, and the beauty of our neighborhoods. I have felt primarily safe in this community, but ALPR cameras have shaƩered my illusion of safety and privacy. We cannot accept the false premise that mass surveillance brings safety when the reality is that it creates new threats to privacy, civil liberƟes, and community trust. Overwhelming evidence shows that local agencies across the country and Flock have grossly mishandled our ALPR data by sharing it with ICE, racially profiling Black and Brown communiƟes, stalking religious minoriƟes, targeƟng people seeking reproducƟve and gender affirming care, and harassing individuals exercising their First Amendment rights to protest. Mass surveillance does not keep our public safe, but endangers all our residents and visitors to our beloved San Mateo.
This item is premature, agendized many months before the Flock camera contract expires in August 2028. Due to the early nature, our Police Department would be forced to operate Flock and Axon ALPRs’ complicated systems simultaneously, which will be challenging given the City’s own admission that operaƟng one system was difficult to comply to legal, policy guidelines. We cannot rush into a new ALPR vendor when the City has not established the governance, contractual protecƟons, and public safeguards necessary for the next surveillance system. While the City has modified their wriƩen policies and has offered one study session (without meaningful community input), we cannot guarantee implementaƟon in pracƟce. Switching to a new vendor, under a 98-month, cumulaƟve $8.5 million contract, without ensuring compliance with the current ALPR system and these new protocols is a hasty decision.
Additionally, if we believed Flock to be a “bad actor” due to its poor security practices, Axon is Flock’s evil twin with direct contractual relationships with ICE. Axon has received over $96 million in contracts from ICE and CBP between 2003 and September 2024. By 2025, Axon held approximately $31.9 million in ICE contract obligations, including for body-worn camera systems and conducted energy weapons, with a $25.6 million adjustment approved in September 2025 to support the Firearms and Tactical Programs. Working with Axon would directly violate state law and San Mateo City’s policy that prohibit data-sharing with federal agencies and for immigration enforcement. We cannot truly safeguard against Axon sharing our sensitive location data with ICE, given the ALPR company’s clear conflict of interest with the dangerous, lawless agency. 2 We respecƞully request that you pull the items from the consent calendar and hosts public town halls to give the community an opportunity for meaningful input, and issue a new RFP so that all vendors comply with strict guardrails to protect all our neighbors. At a Ɵme when ALPRs are under increasing scruƟny, making an 8+ year commitment to a new vendor is irresponsible. Data privacy concerns do not disappear because the name on the camera changes. Staff and elected officials around the country have raised character, transparency, privacy, security, and product governance concerns about Axon. The reality is: there is no perfect policy that will protect us against the fundamental harms of mass surveillance. The best soluƟon is to turn the cameras off.
With graƟtude,
KIMBERLY WOO
Community Organizer
1 From: Mary Graves
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 12:49 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: “Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem."
I am a pastor from Redwood Shores demanding an end to mass surveillance! Sincerely,
Rev. Dr. Mary Graves
1 From: Robert Kahn <
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 12:52 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem.
Rob Kahn
San Mateo County Resident
1 From: Katherine Kinner
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 12:30 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and 12
Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent calendar. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem.
More community input is needed.
Thank you,
Katherine Kinner
1 Erin Fellers
From: Annie Harvey >
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 7:39 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem
Importance: High
Dear City Council ,
I am concerned about the city switching to Axon . I am concerend for individuals privacy rights. Please do not switch to Axon.
Sincerely,
Concerned ciƟzen,
A Harvey
1 Erin Fellers
From:
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 11:20 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem."
Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem." 1 Erin Fellers
From: Brian C
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2026 4:49 PM
To: Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom Cc: Clerk
Subject: Public comment for Oct. 5, Items 11 & 12: please pull from consent Dear Mayor Loraine and Council Members,
The ask:
Please, any one of you, pull Items 11 and 12 from consent. Item 11: change R5 to "will be implemented" and add one sentence so audit results come to Council, starting January 2027. Approve it that way Monday, or bring it back October 19. This would still be in time for the November 2 deadline.
Item 12: hold it until it's closer to being needed, nearer Flock's main 2028 renewal. o At very minimum, two weeks (to October 19), so staff can ask Axon for the terms it signed with Denver and put the no-disclosure language into the contract terms, as in Colma's contract. Staff can also ask Axon to hold its price past the quote's October 16 expiration.
I'm Brian Cervenka, a San Mateo resident of over 15 years. I've spent the last several months reviewing the City’s ALPR programs, and have serious concerns about two items from Monday’s council agenda.
I would like to request that Items 11 and 12 be pulled from the consent calendar so that they can be reviewed with the attention that they deserve. For their Grand Jury responses, Redwood City and Burlingame both treated this matter as deserving a Staff Report discussion item; the court’s cover letter also explicitly requests you report the date of the public meeting at which it was approved. I read that as wanting the community involved.
I believe this draft response has several inaccuracies. It goes to the court as the Council's own response, over the Mayor's signature, so I want to flag them before you approve it. For example, the response marks R5 as “has been implemented”; the Grand Jury rated the City’s audits as “Weak; not published”, and the City’s audit reports are still not published. The City posts a 30-day search log on its Flock portal, with officer IDs masked and no case numbers or written reasons, but a log is not an audit report, and it doesn't show compliance with state law or the City's own policy, which is what R5 asks. Since December 22, Policy 463.10 has required each monthly memo to "include any data errors found so any such errors can be corrected." None of the eight memos released since says what its review found, not even "none found." The review does find problems: in December the auditor emailed staff that some November search reasons were "not acceptable." This council is the last check before the letter is submitted to the judge -- this letter will tell the judge that it was approved at a public meeting on October 5, 2026.
Atherton, Menlo Park, Woodside and the Sheriff's Office already put their audits before their governing bodies. I'd ask you to change R5 to "will be implemented," with January 2027 as the timeframe, and add:
"Beginning January 2027, each monthly ALPR audit memorandum will state the number of data errors found, including zero, and any corrective action taken, and will be provided to the City Council when it is provided to the Chief of Police.”
On Item 12, the Axon amendment: I'd ask you not to start it this early. Our main Flock contract runs through about August 2028, and staff plans to run Axon "concurrently with the existing Flock system" until then. Axon's penalty-free exit ends in November 2027, so for about nine months we'd be locked into both vendors, and for almost two years we'd be running and auditing two complicated systems side by side. It also doesn't match Item 11. There, the City answers R6 "will be implemented," promising to seek California-law compliance and no-disclosure language in a Flock renewal or a new agreement with another 2 provider. This amendment has the California-law clause, but its no-disclosure language appears only in the preamble, not in the terms. If that protection belongs in a renewal, it belongs in an amendment that adds 59 plate-reader cameras through 2035. Finally, Civil Code § 1798.90.55(a) sets only a floor, "an opportunity for public comment" at a regular meeting. A 98-month, $1.1 million addition deserves a discussion, not one consent motion "without discussion." Axon has already agreed to friendlier terms elsewhere. In March, Denver approved an Axon contract for the same Outpost cameras that owes "no termination fee, MSRP differential, or clawback of any kind," opts Denver out of Axon's data program, and starts no subscription until the cameras are accepted. We should not add a second plate-reader camera system without extensive public input, as Redwood City is doing by putting its next plate-reader contract out to bid and through a public advisory-committee meeting. If we do move forward with Axon, it's worth taking the time to negotiate a friendlier, more flexible contract. Our Flock contract's gap, no California-law terms (Grand Jury F6), surfaced only after signing. Axon's terms deserve that review before we sign. Once signed, they run to January 2035, and the agreement "may only be modified or amended in a writing signed by the Parties," so even retaining Axon services on better terms would take Axon's consent. Our only leverage then would be leaving, and after the first year any exit is "subject to the payment obligations outlined in the underlying Agreement, including any applicable MSRP reconciliation."
Thank you for your time reading this on the weekend. I’m happy to discuss or send the documents behind any of the points above; they’re all public records.
Brian Cervenka
San Mateo resident, Sunnybrae,
1 Erin Fellers
From: Brian C
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 3:55 AM
To: Adam Loraine; Nicole Fernandez; Danielle Cwirko-Godycki; Lisa Diaz Nash; Rob Newsom Cc: Clerk; Brian C
Subject: (Resent) Public comment for Oct. 5, Items 11 & 12: please pull from consent [Resending from a different address in case my October 4 email from was caught by a spam filter. The text is unchanged.]
Dear Mayor Loraine and Council Members,
The ask:
Please, any one of you, pull Items 11 and 12 from consent. Item 11: change R5 to "will be implemented" and add one sentence so audit results come to Council, starting January 2027. Approve it that way Monday, or bring it back October 19. This would still be in time for the November 2 deadline.
Item 12: hold it until it's closer to being needed, nearer Flock's main 2028 renewal. o At very minimum, two weeks (to October 19), so staff can ask Axon for the terms it signed with Denver and put the no-disclosure language into the contract terms, as in Colma's contract. Staff can also ask Axon to hold its price past the quote's October 16 expiration.
I'm Brian Cervenka, a San Mateo resident of over 15 years. I've spent the last several months reviewing the City’s ALPR programs, and have serious concerns about two items from Monday’s council agenda.
I would like to request that Items 11 and 12 be pulled from the consent calendar so that they can be reviewed with the attention that they deserve. For their Grand Jury responses, Redwood City and Burlingame both treated this matter as deserving a Staff Report discussion item; the court’s cover letter also explicitly requests you report the date of the public meeting at which it was approved. I read that as wanting the community involved.
I believe this draft response has several inaccuracies. It goes to the court as the Council's own response, over the Mayor's signature, so I want to flag them before you approve it. For example, the response marks R5 as “has been implemented”; the Grand Jury rated the City’s audits as “Weak; not published”, and the City’s audit reports are still not published. The City posts a 30-day search log on its Flock portal, with officer IDs masked and no case numbers or written reasons, but a log is not an audit report, and it doesn't show compliance with state law or the City's own policy, which is what R5 asks. Since December 22, Policy 463.10 has required each monthly memo to "include any data errors found so any such errors can be corrected." None of the eight memos released since says what its review found, not even "none found." The review does find problems: in December the auditor emailed staff that some November search reasons were "not acceptable." This council is the last check before the letter is submitted to the judge -- this letter will tell the judge that it was approved at a public meeting on October 5, 2026.
Atherton, Menlo Park, Woodside and the Sheriff's Office already put their audits before their governing bodies. I'd ask you to change R5 to "will be implemented," with January 2027 as the timeframe, and add:
"Beginning January 2027, each monthly ALPR audit memorandum will state the number of data errors found, including zero, and any corrective action taken, and will be provided to the City Council when it is provided to the Chief of Police.”
On Item 12, the Axon amendment: I'd ask you not to start it this early. Our main Flock contract runs through about August 2028, and staff plans to run Axon "concurrently with the existing Flock system" until then. Axon's penalty-free exit ends in November 2027, so for about nine months we'd be locked into both 2 vendors, and for almost two years we'd be running and auditing two complicated systems side by side. It also doesn't match Item 11. There, the City answers R6 "will be implemented," promising to seek California-law compliance and no-disclosure language in a Flock renewal or a new agreement with another provider. This amendment has the California-law clause, but its no-disclosure language appears only in the preamble, not in the terms. If that protection belongs in a renewal, it belongs in an amendment that adds 59 plate-reader cameras through 2035. Finally, Civil Code § 1798.90.55(a) sets only a floor, "an opportunity for public comment" at a regular meeting. A 98-month, $1.1 million addition deserves a discussion, not one consent motion "without discussion." Axon has already agreed to friendlier terms elsewhere. In March, Denver approved an Axon contract for the same Outpost cameras that owes "no termination fee, MSRP differential, or clawback of any kind," opts Denver out of Axon's data program, and starts no subscription until the cameras are accepted. We should not add a second plate-reader camera system without extensive public input, as Redwood City is doing by putting its next plate-reader contract out to bid and through a public advisory-committee meeting. If we do move forward with Axon, it's worth taking the time to negotiate a friendlier, more flexible contract. Our Flock contract's gap, no California-law terms (Grand Jury F6), surfaced only after signing. Axon's terms deserve that review before we sign. Once signed, they run to January 2035, and the agreement "may only be modified or amended in a writing signed by the Parties," so even retaining Axon services on better terms would take Axon's consent. Our only leverage then would be leaving, and after the first year any exit is "subject to the payment obligations outlined in the underlying Agreement, including any applicable MSRP reconciliation."
Thank you for your time reading this on the weekend. I’m happy to discuss or send the documents behind any of the points above; they’re all public records.
Brian Cervenka
San Mateo resident, Sunnybrae,
1 Erin Fellers
From: Cathy Baird
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2026 8:57 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: “Agenda Items #11 and 12: Pull Items Off Consent, Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem)
Council members:
I am a member of Safety Over Surveillance (SOS) of San Mateo County. I am traveling and don’t have the capacity to write as much as I’d like, but I am taking the Ɵme to ask you to pull agenda items 11 and 12 from the consent calendar so that the community can provide feedback about surveillance cameras.
There are many problems with Flock as a company and keeping up with secure data retenƟon policies is difficult. But switching to Axon is no beƩer than Flock, and voƟng for an $8+ million contract without discussion is appalling. Axon has a contract with ICE, and as an immigrant rights advocate I find that disqualifying and counter to California state law.
Please pull these items from the consent calendar and provide a Ɵme and place for community feedback on surveillance cameras.
Cathy Baird
1 Erin Fellers
From: Doug Harvey
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 7:16 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon does not solve the problem.
Hello,
I want to register a complaint to please do not sign on with Avon traffic camera systems.
Without a privacy guarantee we cannot allow these systems to be used.
Best,
Doug Harvey
1 Erin Fellers
From: Emily Morris
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 10:01 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem.
Dear Councilmembers,
I'm a San Mateo (North Central) resident who has lived here for over 10 years, and I am strongly opposed to any form of mass surveillance automatic license plate readers (ALPRs) in our city. I am extremely distressed to hear that the council is trying to rush through a contract with Axon.
Mass surveillance cameras like the ones from Axon and Flock violate our civil rights and make all of us less safe. They track us everywhere we go, regardless of whether or not we're suspected of a crime, and they help federal agents kidnap our friends and neighbors. Axon works directly with ICE, which is currently terrorizing our community members.
In the name of public safety, I am asking the city to end its ALPR contract and refuse to contract with another vendor. I am asking the city to pull the items from the consent calendar to give the public a real opportunity for input.
Thank you for your consideration,
Emily
1 Erin Fellers
From: Evelyn Proctor
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 9:58 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: “Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem."
Hi,
It has come to my attention that the San Mateo City Council is trying to replace Flock with Axon at this evening's meeting. Axon has $128M in contracts with ICE, and San Mateo’s Axon contract is set for 98 months for nearly $8.5M. The City has placed this dangerous tool as a consent item, without meaningful opportunity for community input.
Here is my input. Pull this item off consent and listen to the people of San Mateo. Flock and Axon cameras enable passive, indiscriminate mass surveillance that builds permanent, searchable movement histories of ordinary citizens without a warrant or probable cause.
Thank you, Evelyn Proctor
1 Erin Fellers
From: Jackie S
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 10:11 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12. Pull items of consent. No Axon!!! Switching to Axon doesn’t sole the problem! No to Axon! Jackie Scheidlinger
1 Erin Fellers
From: Jeanne Benioff
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 8:37 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 & #12
Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem.
Jeanne Benioff
--
Jeanne Benioff
AmSAT Certified Alexander Technique Teacher
1 Erin Fellers
From: Jessica Vacketta
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 8:08 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda Items #11 and #12: Pull Items off consent I have serious concerns about the switching to Axon, particularly their work with ICE. If San Mateo is truly a safe community for immigrants, how can we give a contract to company that provides weapons, camera and software to ICE. Until there is a change in how this agency is run, how can we spend our money to support them? Maybe the conversation should be if we even have these cameras at all? Rev. Jessica Vacketta (she/her/hers)
Senior Minister
Congregational Church of San Mateo
...open, progressive, spiritual
1 Erin Fellers
From: Karen Fine
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 10:36 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent For Agenda items #11 and #12: pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem.
Do not replace Flock with Axon. Axon has $128 M in contracts with ICE. San Mateo's Axon contract is set for 98 months for nearly $8.5 million.
There needs to be an opportunity for community input. End mass surveillance.
Karen Fine
Redwood City resident but often in San Mateo to visit friends and shop and eat. 1 Erin Fellers
From: Laurel Hale
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 9:22 AM
To: Clerk
Cc: Laurel Hale
Subject: Agenda Items #11 and #12: Pull Items Off Consent, (Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem)
My name is Laurel Hale. I live and own a home here in San Mateo. I am a member of Safety Over Surveillance San Mateo, or SOS-SMC, a local, volunteer-led collaborative of privacy and community safety advocates. I am writing today to address San Mateo’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report and the proposal to enter into a new ALPR contract. Please pull both items off the consent calendar to give our community the opportunity to collaborate on efforts to keep us all safe.
RE: Agenda Item #11 Response to Grand Jury Report:
1. The City Council has an obligation to listen to the community and hear our findings and recommendations before responding to the Civil Grand Jury Report and before attempting to find another ALPR vendor.
2. The City should host at least 2 accessible Town Halls about the City’s surveillance cameras (accommodating working families and people who are not fluent in English), with 2 weeks’ lead time, to collect meaningful community feedback, responses, and recommendations. These Town Halls cannot merely be presentations from the police department.
3. Before the City even hosts a town hall, the City must offer detailed information about past problematic data sharing from the City’s surveillance program. The City must answer questions about the existing and proposed program. The Police Department, City Manager and City Attorney must share their research comparing the many safeguards other communities have implemented to improve transparency, oversight, and accountability.
4. At a time when ALPRs are under increasing scrutiny, making an 8+ year commitment to Axon, a vendor with over $96 million in ICE contracts, is irresponsible. As City Council members, you have the power to protect our community.
5. Our community has a wealth of civil liberties, technology expertise, and personal experience that should be tapped before moving forward with any response. Before you make a decision about solutions to the problems the Grand Jury identified, you need to talk to the community to identify what OUR problems are.
6. Community members have expressed serious concerns about San Mateo starting a new surveillance camera program to continually track our movements and compile detailed data sets about everyone who spends time in or travels through San Mateo.
7. The Grand Jury Report revealed serious problems with our City’s surveillance cameras, including problems with compliance and a lack of oversight. These problems require serious consideration and community engagement before the City responds and before the City hastily selects a new vendor.
8. San Mateo’s use of surveillance cameras undercuts the City’s claim of being a Welcoming City for immigrants, especially as we celebrate Hispanic Latino Heritage Month. The City should not work with companies that have proven relationships with federal immigration enforcement and whose equipment enables their reign of terror.
RE: Agenda Item #12 Axon Contract:
2 1. ALPRs in SMC: San Mateo should end its ALPR contract and refuse to find another vendor. In 2023, the San Mateo City Police Department signed up for 40 ALPRs (and a related database) from Flock for over $500,000. Since then, the SMPD has increased its fleet to 66 ALPRs, the highest number in the entire County. Now, the City wants to replace Flock with Axon (Flock’s evil twin). The City’s 98-month, cumulative $8.5 million Axon contract deserves a public conversation with meaningful opportunity for community input, not one consent motion "without discussion.” After all, this affects EVERYONE—especially tax payers like me!
2. The core problem is: the City would operate 2 ALPR systems simultaneously. The City’s Flock contract runs through August 2028, and staff plans to run Axon "concurrently with the existing Flock system" until then. Axon's penalty-free exit ends in November 2027, so for nearly nine months, we'd be locked into both vendors. For almost two years, we would run and audit two complicated systems side by side. It was challenging for the City to manage and audit one system, so simultaneous operation could potentially lead to a massive bureaucratic and data privacy headache. Since the new vendor is also linked with other Axon contracts, it’s going to be challenging to unwind it all. I see dollars flying out the window and YOUR reckless disregard for my hard-earned cash.
3. This item is premature, agendized many months before the Flock camera contract expires in August 2028. We cannot rush into a new ALPR vendor when the City has not established the governance, contractual protections, and public safeguards necessary for the next surveillance system. While the City has modified their written policies, we cannot guarantee implementation in practice. Switching to a new vendor without ensuring compliance with the current ALPR system and these new protocols is a hasty decision.
4. If we contract with Axon, auditing our City’s data regarding ICE cooperation could produce a false negative. According to DHS’ data policies, ICE does not leave any trail in audit logs on any ALPR they contract with, except their own. We may not see any query results about “ICE” or if ICE accessed our data because ICE purposely and systematically refuses to leave any evidence of their wrongdoing, and Axon is in bed with immigration enforcement. We need an independent, public audit of our surveillance system to implement the necessary protocols to prohibit future abuse, regardless of the surveillance camera vendor. And ONLY ONE. They are costly and bad management of the city’s contracts are one of the primary reasons my property tax continues to rise through the roof!
Thank you,
Laurel P. Hale
1 Erin Fellers
From: LB
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 7:52 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: “Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem."
“Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem." 1 Erin Fellers
From: Lloyd Gordon
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 11:04 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Pull items #11 and #12 off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem.
You need to put an end to mass surveillance of citizens that you were elected to protect. 1 Erin Fellers
From: Alex Khojikian
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 11:40 AM
To: Chantal Eaton; Prasanna Rasiah; Martin McTaggart
Subject: FW: Letter for the San Mateo City Council re: ALPR Attachments: LTR - ALPR (San Mateo).pdf
FYI
Alex Khojikian
City Manager | City Manager’s Office
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7002 | [email protected]
From: Ed Barberini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 11:39 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo) <[email protected]> Subject: Letter for the San Mateo City Council re: ALPR Good Morning,
The District Attorney’s Office has requested that the attached letter be forwarded to City Councilmembers.
See you all this evening,
Ed
Ed Barberini
Chief of Police
City of San Mateo Police Department
200 Franklin Pkwy, San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7600 | [email protected]
Stephen M. Wagstaffe, District Attorney
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
SHIN-MEE CHANG REBECCA L. BAUM • MORRIS MAYA • JOSHUA K. STAUFFER
CHIEF DEPUTY ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
500 COUNTY CENTER, 4th FLOOR, REDWOOD CITY, CALIFORNIA 94063 (650) 363-4677 October 2, 2026
Dear Members of the San Mateo City Council,
I have been asked to describe the contribution that Automated License Plate Readers (ALPR) have made to public safety and more specifically, criminal prosecutions, in the hope that it is helpful to you in assessing the costs and benefits of this technology to our community. By way of introduction, I am the supervisor of the Homicide Unit and have been involved in the prosecution of murders for nearly 20 years.
In framing this discussion, it is important to understand that the benefits are not hypothetical. In the City of San Mateo alone, 2 murder prosecutions have been made possible by this technology, and one additional investigation was substantially advanced by ALPR evidence. In one instance, the identification of the perpetrator of a cold-blooded ambush killing would not have been possible without it. In another, the apprehension of a man who strangled his pregnant girlfriend resulting in her death and the death of her unborn child, occurred directly as a result of ALPR evidence. In both investigations, this information led police to murderers who had fled hundreds of miles from the scenes of their horrific crimes and may never have faced justice if not for ALPR technology.
This is to say that I have stood shoulder to shoulder with homicide victims’ families while they hoped against hope that the people responsible for these tragedies are identified, arrested and prosecuted. In some cases, that simply would not be possible without the information provided by ALPR technology. Inevitably, serious crimes will go unsolved should ALPR readers be removed from the roadways of this community.
1 Erin Fellers
From: Michelle Savage
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 7:32 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem.
Please do not move forward with Axon. We do not need surveillance. Thank you, Michelle Savage
1 Erin Fellers
From: Reid Conti
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 7:11 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem
Hi,
I’m a homeowner and resident of San Mateo county and I vehemently disagree with warrentless, probable cause-less dragnet surveillance of every single person who drives by a camera, no matter the vendor, no matter the data retention period.
It’s a blatant, inexcusable violation of my 4th amendment rights and it’s shocking that this idea would ever be considered in a free society.
The rampant abuse of this system by insiders, authorized users, and unaccountable federal agencies alike has been well-documented, so I don’t need to rehash of.
Abuses of mass surveillance cannot be wished away or eliminated by policy. They are FEATURES of the creation of a surveillance society. They are the impossible outcome.
No level of possible crime could ever justify this constant tracking of innocent people, and we live in no different a society than we did a couple years ago before this abusive regime was implemented, so there’s absolutely no justification for it now.
I’d show up in person to protest but I am currently traveling in Poland where every street corner I visit is testament to the abuses of authority, surveillance, and murders that would be supercharged with mass surveillance technology.
Tear down the cameras, immediately. Do not put up new ones. Do not ever attempt to justify such a system ever again in the future.
Be on the right side of history. Listen to the people.
Reid Conti
Redwood City
1 Erin Fellers
From: SARA HALLER
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 7:26 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem.
Dear Clerk of SMCC,
Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem.
Sara Haller
Sent from my iPhone
1 Erin Fellers
From: STEPHEN ELLEN
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 11:17 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent Dear San Mateo City Council,
These items deserve more attention than provided by the consent agenda. Please take your role seriously.
Stephen Ellen
1 Erin Fellers
From: Trisha Jenkins
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 8:32 AM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem
My name is Patricia Jenkins and I live in San Mateo.
I share the concerns of Safety Over Surveillance San Mateo, or SOS-SMC, a local, volunteer-led collaborative of privacy and community safety advocates.
I want to address San Mateo’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report and the proposal to enter into a new ALPR contract.
Please pull both items off the consent calendar to give our community the opportunity to collaborate on efforts to keep us all safe.
Thank you!
Patricia
Sent from my iPhone
1 From: hyashai
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 3:20 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda Items #11 and 12: Pull Items Off Consent, Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
I am a San Mateo resident. The fact that my privacy is not respected is a violation of my rights.
I am not a driver but the presence of military grade surveillance is extremely disturbing. I am strongly against the extension of the surveillance state onto people. This can be easily abused by bad actors, especially renegade ICE goons.
Stop it now!
Thank you for your understanding.
Warm regards,
Hannah
Sent from Proton Mail for Android.
1 From: Judi
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 3:38 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Tonight's Agenda Items #11 and #12: Pull items off consent. Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem.
My name is Judy Kennedy. I am frequently in the City of San Mateo to shop for groceries and other items, to dine at restaurants and for medical and dental appointments. I am a supporter of Safety Over Surveillance San Mateo
(SOS-SMC), a local, volunteer-led collaborative of privacy and community safety advocates. I am submitting my email comments today to address San Mateo's response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report and the proposal to enter into a new ALPR contract. I urge you to pull both agenda item #11 and #12 off the consent calendar in order to give our community the opportunity to collaborate on efforts to keep us all safe.
Re agenda item #11: At a time when ALPRs are under increasing scrutiny, I believe it is irresponsible to make an 8+ year commitment to Axon, a vendor with over $96M in ICE contracts. The Grand Jury Report revealed serious problems with the City of San Mateo's surveillance cameras, including problems with compliance and a lack of oversight and these problems require serious consideration and community involvement before moving forward to select and hire a new vendor. Instead of rushing to put this item #11 on the consent calendar, in my opinion the City Council should pull this item, schedule at least 2 Town Halls about the City's surveillance cameras (accommodating working families and people who are not fluent in English), and provide 2 weeks' lead time to collect meaningful community feedback, responses and recommendations.
Full transparency requires that before the City even hosts a town hall, the City must offer detailed information about past problematic data sharing from the City's surveillance program, must answer questions about the existing and proposed program plus the Police Department, City Manager and City Attorney must share their research comparing the many safeguards other communities have implemented in order to improve transparency, oversight and accountability.
The City of San Mateo's claim of being a Welcoming City for immigrants, especially as we celebrate Hispanic Latino Heritage Month is undercut by the City's use of surveillance cameras.
Re agenda item #12: My understanding is the core problem is: the City would operate 2 ALPR systems simultaneously. The City's Flock contract runs through August 2028 and staff plans to 2 run Axon "concurrently with the existing Flock system" until then. Axon's penalty-free exit ends in November 2027, so for nearly nine months, the City would be locked into both vendors and for almost two years, the City would run and audit two complicated systems side by side. Based on reports, it was challenging for the City to manage and audit one system, so simultaneous operation could potentially lead to a massive bureaucratic and data privacy problem. Since the new vendor is also linked with other Axon contracts it's seems that it would be challenging to unwind.
In my opinion, the agenda item #12 is premature because it is agendized many months before the Flock camera contract expires in August 2028. I do not think it is prudent to rush into a 98- month, cumulative $8.5M Axon contract without having adequate public engagement with meaningful opportunity for community input. In addition, I believe that switching to Axon, a new vendor, without ensuring compliance with the current ALPR system and the City's new protocols is a hasty decision.
I am extremely concerned about Axon's direct contractual relationships with ICE and I think working with Axon would directly violate state law and San Mateo City's policy that prohibits data-sharing with federal agencies and for immigration enforcement. I do not think we can truthfully safeguard against Axon sharing our sensitive location data with ICE, given the company's clear conflict of interest with ICE which I believe is currently a dangerous agency that is tearing our communities apart due to their violent deportation actions.
In summary, I urge you to pull both agenda item #11 and #12 off the consent calendar in order to give our community the opportunity to collaborate on efforts to keep us all safe. 1 From: Praneetha Potiny
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 3:38 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda Items #11 and 12: Pull Items Off Consent, Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem
My name is Praneetha . I am a resident of San Mateo. I am also member of Safety Over Surveillance San Mateo, or SOSSMC, a local, volunteer-led collaboraƟve of privacy and community safety advocates. I want to speak on San Mateo’s response to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report and the proposal to enter into a new ALPR contract. Please pull both items off the consent calendar to give our community the opportunity to collaborate on efforts to keep us all safe.
We do not want mass surveillance. On October 1, a federal judge ruled that ALPR searches are unconsƟtuƟonal under the Fourth Amendment searches, suggesƟng Flock’s (and similar ALPRs’) network is “a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance.” We must refuse to contract with another ALPR vendor for over 8 years, as doing so would send us in a dystopian world of mass warrantless government surveillance on our people.
Regarding Item #11 - At a Ɵme when ALPRs are under increasing scruƟny, making an 8+ year commitment to Axon, a vendor with over $96 million in ICE contracts, is irresponsible. As City Council members, you have the power to protect our community.
Item #12 is premature, agendized many months before the Flock camera contract expires in August 2028. We cannot rush into a new ALPR vendor when the City has not established the governance, contractual protecƟons, and public safeguards necessary for the next surveillance system. While the City has modified their wriƩen policies, we cannot guarantee implementaƟon in pracƟce. Switching to a new vendor without ensuring compliance with the current ALPR system and these new protocols is a hasty decision.
Please remove these items and work on addressing the community’s concerns! Sincerely,
Praneetha PoƟny
1 From: Robert Whitehair
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 11:48 AM
To: City Council (San Mateo); Alex Khojikian
Cc: Pam Rittelmeyer
Subject: Agenda Item 13 - Providing documentation of Tax Credit Financing Dear Mayor, City Council, and City Manager
Agenda Item 13 tonight is important. Construction of the contemplated project will provide much needed housing for all San Mateo Residents, especially seniors like me.
My concerns are these
1. If the Council does approve the alternative, what guarantee is there that the second phase of the project, for seniors, that is, the alternative, will ever be built?
2. Has JemCor, the developer, provided documentation, or will it provide such documentation, that it has sought approval of private, federal, or state sources, for tax exempt bonds? These processes are as you know, quite complicated and lengthy. What has JemCor done so far? This is the pertinent section of the staff report that causes me concern:
While the Project will not be funded with “public” funding (no City or County funds will be requested), it will utilize private activity tax-exempt bonds and federal (and also potentially state) low-income housing tax credits. The Applicant is a prominent developer of 100% affordable housing in the Bay Area. It is eminently qualified to develop Building B using this capital structure.
Thank you
Robert Whitehair
Vice President
Borel Neighborhood Association
1 From: Squeep Squapper <
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 3:51 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda Items #11 and 12: Pull Items Off Consent, Switching to Axon doesn't solve the problem
Hi, my name is Ming, and I live in neighboring Foster City. I often come to San Mateo to visit friends or shop. Before I was informed by members of Safety Over Surveillance San Mateo, I had no idea that San Mateo was going to sign a contract with Axon, and neither did my friends who live here. If the city is planning to track the movements of every single person who lives here, works here, or simply drives through, it needs to adequately inform constituents and take their opinions into account through at least 2 accessible town halls with at least 2 weeks’ advance notice for community members to inform themselves about the discussion topic.
Personally, I do not feel safe knowing that the city of San Mateo is trying to sneak in a contract with Axon, which has $128M in contracts with ICE. I hope that San Mateo reconsiders this policy because it is very damaging to the trust of this community.
1 From: Bill Newell
Sent: Monday, October 5, 2026 3:56 PM
To: Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 11 and 12
Dearl members of the City Council:
As someone who commonly travels the streets of San Mateo I respectfully request that you please pull items 11 and 12 from the Consent Calendar for public comment and council discussion.
Switching contracts to Axon does not solve the problem for use of ALPRs.
with gratitude
Bill Newell
Redwood City, CA