Sunset Valley City Council

City council agreed that Flock was untrustworthy and let our contract expire in February. Proving that decision was correct, Flock has still not removed its surveillance cameras 6 months later, and they are currently scanning 300K+ cars a month for Flock and its customers. Some cameras have been taped over, but not all. Please complete the action you took and cover them all up.

I believe Sunset Valley should borrow the money to purchase Sunset Valley Elementary, rather than participating in a land trade involving the portion of The Uplands that would provide access to HWY 290.
Over time, the portions of The Uplands that would provide access to HWY 290 will increase in value much more than the school property. That The Uplands property is an important emergency nest egg for Sunset Valley, particularly if sales tax revenues were to decline. To avoid the city having to pay a lot of interest on the loan, the school property could be put up for sale immediately. Even if the City did not get all of its money back in the sale, retaining the much more valuable 290 access property would still be financially prudent.
Before selling, Sunset Valley could place deed restrictions on the school property to control the potential uses of it. I believe that the deed restrictions would provide robust protections in the courts, guaranteeing a desirable use of the school property.
If AISD were to get control of the 290 access portion of The Uplands, our ordinances controlling construction on the property would be difficult to uphold, because of the commercial value of that property. There is a danger of The Uplands taking on characteristics similar to those of the multi-use developments lining South Lamar that have multiple stories of apartments over retail space. If parking were to be built behind such structures, as on Lamar, with the 290 access road being one-way, the resultant traffic increase on Jones Road could be significant. Most traffic from the East and South going to these commercial areas will use Jones Road to access the parking lots on The Uplands. A traffic light may need to be installed on Pillow at Jones, and depending on the time of day, old-town residents may have difficulty accessing Jones Road.
With reasonable calm and careful consideration, we can guarantee a desirable use of the school property, retain the financially valuable Uplands 290 access and reduce the potential traffic increases on Jones Road as much as possible.
Sincerely,
Burton Pierson
Resident

In my opinion, Sunset Valley should not trade the portion of The Uplands that has highway access, in order to reduce the cost of purchasing the Sunset Valley Elementary School property. Development of The Uplands would degrade our city’s environment, including dramatically increasing traffic along Jones Road.

Please look at other options with a keen eye.

Thank you.

Valerie Loomis
Sunset Valley resident

I believe Sunset Valley should consider other means of developing income to purchase Sunset Valley Elementary rather than participating in a land trade. A land trade involving The Uplands highway access property would negatively impact important characteristics of our city. We should carefully consider multiple possibilities and relevant consequences.

Many municipalities sell a municipal bond to develop cash for important projects. Has Sunset Valley throughly explored this possibility? Our sales tax income has been steady enough to guarantee a level of revenue. Most entities that increase their wealth take on some debt at some point. For example, people often take on debt, with no real guarantee of future income, to buy a home and that act begins their wealth accumulation.

For those concerned about needing income for a future emergency, The Uplands, due to the highway access, will increase in value more than the school property. Money depreciates from inflation, while land appreciates.

Development along the highway on The Uplands property could very well take on the characteristics of those multi-use developments lining South Lamar that have multiple stories of single-family apartments over retail space. If parking is built behind these structures, as it is Lamar, with the 290 access road being one-way, the resultant traffic increase on Jones Road could be significant.

Let’s not panic and rush our beloved city into a very bad situation!

Sincerely,

Burton Pierson

My name is Christine Allen and I live at 12 Reese. I am writing to request that the city take action to remove or disable the the Flock-operated cameras located around the city. Similar to what has unfolded in other cities, even after city council voted to cancel the contract earlier this year, Flock has made no move to remove the devices. They have no incentive to do so--their cameras continue to collect data for sale to marketers and government agencies.

If the city needs help to cover the cameras or (even better!) remove them, I am more than happy to volunteer my time!

Please take this experience into consideration when the next shiny, AI-driven product promises to make us safer, smarter, and save us money. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.

My name is Ross Ponder. I'm a Sunset Valley resident. I'm writing in my personal capacity as a resident in support of granting the variance requested by Jacob and Sabaa Ruiz at 4450 Stearns Lane, and I want to explain why I think the applicants have made their case on each of the five findings Council must make under Section 150(A). There is no staff memo engaging with the applicants' findings, just a categorical denial recommendation.
On the first finding, reasonable and economic use, the applicants have done something most variance applicants don't bother to do. They have documented the actual pattern of development on their street. Pools, a pickleball court, an outdoor spa, and batting cages already exist at 4460 and 4470 Stearns. 4400 Stearns has a house built within the Critical Water Quality Zone. Their own property currently has impervious cover limited to a driveway and the house. Denying the variance would leave 4450 as the one property on its block prevented from doing what every neighbor has already done, and the requested cover of 20.8% is modest compared to what surrounds it.
On the second finding, substantial property right, outdoor recreational use is plainly customary residential use in Sunset Valley. The neighborhood evidence proves that.
The third finding, no detriment to public health, safety, or welfare, is where the applicants' evidence is strongest and where I'd gently push back on a denial. 4470 Stearns has had a pickleball court, pool, and spa in place since 2024, over the 18% cap, two houses away. The applicants represent that there have been no complaints, no enforcement actions, and no adverse impacts in that time. The applicants are right not to argue that one violation justifies another. But the practical evidence from a nearly identical installation, on the same street, with the same drainage patterns, is exactly the kind of direct evidence Council should weigh. The proposed court has no commercial use, no lighting, no public access, and the adjacent neighbors at 4460 have given their consent on the record.
On the fourth finding, orderly development, this is a single-family accessory improvement that does not change the development pattern of the neighborhood. It conforms to it.
On the fifth finding, water quality equal to or better, the applicants have responded directly to staff feedback dated May 6. They have added a water filtration system to the project plans, they have committed on the record to making approval contingent on that system, and they have submitted a Project Narrative and Drainage Impact Statement from Austin Greenery describing a catch basin, water swale, and four-inch solid flex drain pipe routed to a designated outfall. The supporting site plan confirms the drainage routing. The applicants have also offered to add native landscaping around the court as additional natural filtration. I would also note the unresolved factual question in the packet itself. The staff background describes the court site as within the Water Quality Transition Zone, but Exhibit 1, which the applicants note was provided by City Staff, shows the property in Zone X with no Critical Water Quality Zone overlap. If the staff map is right, the water quality risk that underlies the staff recommendation is meaningfully smaller than the background paragraph suggests, and the applicants' mitigations clear it.
I want to acknowledge what a denial would protect. Sunset Valley's impervious cover rules exist because Williamson Creek is a real resource and incremental cover decisions add up. I take that seriously. But the structure Council adopted under Section 150(A) is not a categorical rule. It is a five-part findings test designed to let Council approve well-mitigated projects on well-suited lots when the evidence supports it. The Ruizes have given Council that evidence. They have engaged with staff, incorporated feedback, hired a contractor who produced a drainage plan, and offered to make their mitigations a condition of approval.
I would respectfully ask Council to approve the variance, with the water filtration system and drainage plan made express conditions of the approval, and to enter findings under Section 150(B) supporting each of the five factors so the record is clean.
Thank you for your service and for the careful work that goes into these decisions.
Ross Ponder

Tgyyy

I wish to end the surveillance contract in question. Thank uou

This is Lauren Petty at 9 Sunset Trail. I would like to support my fellow residents that are opposed to the City of Sunset Valley contracting with the Flock camera service. From the research I have done and that has also been presented by friends that I have who attended the public safety meeting, Flock corporation can not properly secure our information or be depended on to not compromise our information, Hacking is a giant concern as well and information has been presented this has previously occurred. I have great trust our in our Police Department, our Public Safety Staff and our City Council, but having a third party company jeopardizes our private information and our community and the very people that are set out to protect us. Please consider our concerns when renewing their contract and let’s see if we can find an alternative way that protects us from the danger Flock has presented in addition to making things work for those protecting us.

Respectfully,

Lauren and Phillip Petty
9 Sunset Trail

This is Mickie Powers from 23 Sunset Trail. I want to say that I am opposed to the City of Sunset Valley contracting with the flock camera service. From the research I’ve done and what has been presented at the public safety meeting, the corporation cannot be depended on to do the right thing with the information, nor does it seem that they can secure it properly from being hacked. I thoroughly trust our public safety staff, and the city Council, but it sounds as if there are things that could be out out of their control and jeopardize private information. If these cameras were available for our use totally inside the city I would have no objection. I do not know if there are other companies that can be researched as a possibility to provide this service, but this company does not seem worthy.








information either because of their own doing or because they might be hacked by others who have nefarious intentions. I thoroughly trust our police department and our council members. However, even in spite of their own diligence to do the right thing, it appears from what I have learned that the corporation running flock cannot guarantee the security of their system, nor can they guaranteed their intentions with regard to the materials that they might share outside of our community.

For item #11 Uplands
I am wondering if we should choose #3 just because the AISD property is in flux, and the current parking issues we having with AISD? I would love to see designs and schematics, but am unsure if its prudent just due to the school closing, until we know a little more. Otherwise I support #2 option.
Thanks
scott crow
Reese Dr.

Concerning Agenda Item #10

We do not support the renewal of the contract with Flock. As many other residents have already commented, there are too many concerns when it comes to the company's lackluster data security. The discussion should be had, however, about how we can best equip the Sunset Valley police department to continue serving the community so admirably. Thanks for your consideration.

Travis Avery and Paige Harden
16 Reese

Hello Mayor, City Council members and officers of SVPD

My wife Ann and I are writing to oppose the Flock cameras. From our reading on them in the media they seem like a typical silicon valley start up, flaunting the gray area of laws to make as much money, and dominant the markets (in this case, town, cities and communities information) as fast as they can with no regard or respect for law enforcement, peoples privacy or individual cities own wishes. They will sell the information to anyone.
Due to these media reports (and there are a lot of them) we worry about the information being used unscrupulously by corporations and agencies without SVPD's, our city, or individuals consent or knowledge.

I think our city does a very good job of community policing - way before the cameras ever appeared.
Chief and staff have done a great job of mitigating the retail issues, and residence safety.

I would like to see us look for alternatives to corporate surveillance where we have control of our information.
Flocks own reports of their 'successes' are not impressive, and I think we should weigh the human and ethical costs / benefits of having them in addition to the economics. We should join other Texas cities like Austin, Lockhart, and Hays County, and others across the country, in saying no, or at least a moratorium on their contract until we can assess citizens personal safety

We love living here because of the trust and support from our neighbors, city staff and the actual face to face community policing. All rare things in this day.
Thanks for listening
Ann Harkness
scott crow
Reese Dr.

Concerning Agenda Item #10.

While cameras might prove helpful to Sunset Valley’s police force, I am opposed to using the company known as “Flock” to provide the service. Theirs is more of a surveillance approach than a safety approach and I sense a privacy impingement.

As a concerned resident, I urge City Council to consider a different company to satisfy this policing need.

Thank you.

Sunset Valley resident

To the Mayor and City Council,
Concerning agenda item 11. Please, follow the recommendation of staff and postpone construction decisions for The Uplands until further information from AISD can be obtained.

Burton Pierson

Concerning Agenda item 10.

To the Mayor and City Council. It’s not that cameras might be helpful to police, it’s that flock is the wrong company to operate the cameras for Sunset Valley. This fact is well explained here.

https://youtu.be/hwbE5ks7dFg?si=UaKAQTMnOzznpqWQ(External link)

- Burton

I have been a resident of Sunset Valley for 40 years. Along with many other citizens I strongly oppose the use of Flock surveillance in our city. While I appreciate our police department, Flock and similar products is an unnecessary invasion of the privacy of our citizens. Patricia Murphy

as pertains to Flock, i do not support the renewal of the contract . i encourage the city council to find other ways to provide Proper and Safe Surveilance of Sunset Valley

i encourage the city council to pursue option number 2 in terms of developing
the Uplands.

I encourage Council to choose option 2 in terms of Uplands planning, That is : to instruct staff and Mend to include parking in the construction documents.
Although I think we need to be mindful about planning given the various changes at AISD, we also need to proceed with our own planning for the Uplands And create a viable Set of alternatives via development of the Uplands.