Sunset Valley City Council

Flock Safety Problems

Please do not renew Flock Safety contract

Flock technology works by capturing license plates and vehicle characteristics (make, model, color) as vehicles pass by fixed cameras. The software uses computer vision to log identifying data with time and location in a searchable database, comparing results with national and state police watchlists to instantly alert officers when stolen vehicles or wanted suspects are detected. However, the database is being used for much more. The concerns follow:

Violates our privacy every day.
Used by government to locate people who are immigrants—both citizens and non citizens.
Used for reproductive healthcare tracking in Texas to identify woman seeking abortions.
Used by more than 50 federal, state, and local agencies to track protest activity, in some cases specifically targeting known activist groups.
It can violate basic human privacy by pan-tilt-zoom cameras focusing on people walking dogs and children on playground swings. These livestreams have been left exposed to the open internet at times and others have gained access, potentially endangering those on the video tape.
Flock continued to continue surveillance data after their contract was terminated in some cases—even installed 2 new cameras in one City after termination.
More than two dozen cities in the US have terminated Flock services. The wave of contract terminations has been driven by concerns about federal data sharing, immigration enforcement, privacy violations, and security vulnerabilities in Flock's systems. Austin is one of them who terminated their contract with Flock; Sunset Valley should be another one.

The low volume crime fighting benefits of Flock for Sunset Valley (related to identifying car theft and people involved in store theft) do not outweigh ipotential and real problems.
In these times when privacy rights are being trampled, democracy is under siege, and citizens in the country are being killed while protesting, Sunset Valley should not be a partner with Flock. Please do not continue to make our community complicit in Flock mass surveillance.
.

Dear Mayor and Council,
I am supportive of our Excellent Police Department, but
I am opposed to the City renewing the contract with Flock Surveillance.
I encourage our City to follow the example of the Staunton Police Chief who also believes in community policing and disassociate our city from Flock surveillance. I encourage you to watch this YouTube video which talks about a lot of my concerns. Let's exercise our rights as citizens to have less surveillance in our lives.
https://youtu.be/hwbE5ks7dFg?si=UaKAQTMnOzznpqWQ

Thanks,
Melissa Gonzales
Former City Councilmember

I am strongly opposed to renewing the contract w flock cameras.

This is not out of any distrust of our local government or police or opposition to cameras in general, but the company and outside law enforcement agencies have been extremely irresponsible w data in the past. I don’t want our city funds facilitating civil rights violations.

Sunset valley was a safe place to live before the cameras and we can safely live without these cameras while we explore better options.

Subject - Flock Cameras - Contract Renewal

Mayor and Council,

We choose to live in Sunset Valley because it feels safe and open—not because we want to live under constant surveillance.

Flock cameras quietly collect and store location data on residents and visitors who are not suspected of any crime, with limited oversight and unclear safeguards on access and retention.

Without strict limits, transparency, and independent accountability, these systems risk eroding privacy, civil liberties, and trust in local government.

We can protect public safety in ways that are transparent, narrowly targeted, and consistent with the values that make Sunset Valley feel like home.
With all that is going on in our political environment, now, more than ever, they should be removed.

I appreciated all you do for the city!

Michael Francis
Former Mayor and Council Member
16 Lone Oak Trail

Subject: Continued parking concerns on Oakdale

Hi there. I am a resident of Oakdale Drive off Brodie Lane. I’m writing again to bring attention to the growing issue of overflow parking from Leona filling our residential streets, especially during evenings and weekends.

The core problem is simply that Leona does not have the parking capacity to support the volume of customers it attracts, and the spillover is pushed directly into our neighborhood. As a result:
• Cars routinely line both sides of Oakdale, creating a one-lane roadway that restricts flow and raises emergency-access concerns.
• Driveways and corners are frequently obstructed, making entering and exiting homes difficult and unsafe.
• Because our neighborhood has no sidewalks, any pedestrians present must walk in the roadway, further contributing to congestion.
• Overall, the street becomes clogged in a way it was never designed to handle, creating legitimate public-safety concerns for residents.

We want to be clear: this is not an anti-business request. We appreciate the vibrancy local restaurants bring to the area. But our small residential street cannot absorb their customer parking needs, and the current situation has become unsafe and unsustainable.

One simple, low-cost, and effective solution would be placing a bifold “No Restaurant Parking” sign at the entrance of Oakdale—similar to what is currently used on Country White Lane for Nomadic. This type of clear, temporary signage has already proven successful in nearby areas and would immediately help redirect visitors away from residential streets.
Thank you for your time and for your service to our community. I appreciate your consideration.
-Sarah Sampson

I am providing these comments for the Council’s consideration during the December 2nd City Council meeting regarding an emerging parking situation on Oakdale Drive. Since the Leona Café on Brodie Lane opened in November, we have seen a dramatic increase in public parking on Oakdale Drive. On many occasions, cars have been parked on both sides of Oakdale for a significant distance from the intersection, thereby prohibiting two way traffic flow and adequate access for emergency vehicles on our street.

This has become a dangerous situation because it is creating significantly more pedestrian traffic on our street at night, with limited visibility and no sidewalks, and two cars are unable to pass each other with parked cars on both sides of the street, because there is not adequate clearance from a width perspective on Oakdale Drive.

We encourage the Council to create a plan that introduces a public parking prohibition for the entire length of Oakdale Drive, as our street is not adequately suited to accommodate public parking of this nature.

We strongly support local businesses like Leona Cafe, and believe that there are reasonable alternatives to address this situation and to remedy the public safety concern that this new parking behavior is creating on our street.

Should you require any additional information, please feel free to contact me.

Martha (“Matti”) Henson
786 Oakdale Drive

Martha & Jay Webster
770 Oakdale

In reference to the special hearing regarding Leona and the parking issues on Oakdale, we experience it first hand. Our street cannot hold the number of cars that have been parking on Oakdale. Last Thursday night, our neighbors counted 48 cars and on most weekends, the numbers are the same all day long. They park on both sides of the street making it very! difficult to get in or out of our homes or to the light on Brodie. We're also worried about so many strangers now on our street as we've grown accustomed to a relatively quiet street.
The police have told me they are monitoring to make sure emergency fire trucks and/or ambulances can get down our street. On many occasions, I don't see that being possible. And, because we're a dead end street, when folks leave, they're turning around in all our driveways.
We would love for Leona to get a parking permit with Lowe's. Lowe's would benefit from charging for parking like the city of Austin's streets have. Also, folks would be better off parking across Brodie on Ben Garza where there are no residential homes and the street is wider.
The Websters hope council can come up with a solution and change the street parking requirements to either permit parking or No Parking signs for Oakdale. The only problem with No Parking signs is that it will force cars further down Oakdale. We enjoy Leona being our neighbor but we're not enjoying the crowds of cars and people on our street.
Thanks for your consideration

I am unable to attend the November 17th meeting; however, I appreciate the Council's reappointing me to the Board of Adjustments. Please note the the public notice of The City Council meeting for November 17 erroneously states the meeting is Monday, November 17.

Thank you, Susan Durso

I would like the council to reconsider the ROW mowing. I would like to see a map that clearly highlights what is private property, city owned property and Commercial properties and all ROW's. Then shows what the city will mow and not mow as well as what City staff currently maintains, and what the new landscaping will be responsible for mowing. I personally have a ditch that the city installed, and I am unable safely to mow it. I will not be paying the city anything to mow a hazard that they created.

I am against subdivision of property for any property in sunset valley. In current events on this topic I’m against subdivision of Dan Koregans old property on pillow road. Keep sunset valley rural feeling with big undivided properties.

Regarding Utility Subsidies (U.S.) - I am against any reduction in the amount of subsidies for water, wastewater and solid waste service. I base my analysis on my understanding of the economics, i.e., revenue from sales taxes minus the operating expenses for the city being a positive number. I also understand that our savings have been increasing as a result of the excess revenue. I realize that the U.S. competes with expenditures for non-operating project expenditures (N.O.P.E.) , e.g., re-imagine Brodie and play center at City Hall. However, I would prefer that excess revenue continue to accrue as savings and that interest from said savings be used to fund N.O.P.E. projects, i.e., not reduce savings.

I am opposed to any effort to reduce the utility subsidies that benefit a large number of residents. In particular, I am opposed to the reduction of utility subsidies when those funds, which benefit many, are redirected to projects and activities that only benefit a small subset of residents. As a Sunset Valley resident, I request that the utility subsidies not be further reduced. The reductions to the utility subsidies previously enacted were detrimental to residents; there is no reason to further harm all residents, each of whom has an opportunity to benefit from the utility subsidies when the resident's water usage is reduced to the base amount. We should continue to encourage reduction in water usage, especially given that water availability will continue to decrease as water becomes more scarce.

I am opposed to reducing the utility subsidies. In fact, I would like to see the subsidies re-instated.

The city's license plate cameras are part of Flock's national surveillance network, which the state has used to search for a woman who had an abortion, and the federal government has used to raid communities and arrest immigrants at schools—not always with the consent of the camera's host city. I don't want to wait until that happens here. I've delivered a petition to City Council with 162 signatures from parents, teachers and other members of the Sunset Valley Elementary community who want to see the cameras removed.

Sunset Valley is a safe place to raise my children in no small part because of our police department, with or without Flock. I don't think the cameras are worth the external risks they expose our community to.

I am oppose to the current proposal for the development of 9 Reese, and request the variance to be denied

Veronica - 11 Sunset Trl

I am writing to oppose the request for the variance as written. Recent Texas flood experiences and deaths show us that we must excercise extreme caution in how we develop property in the vicinity of creeks, flood plains, and floodways, etc. Although we must be reasonalble in allowing property owners a just use of their property, we must maintain the strictest of allowances on property that can cause potental dangers to other citizens and their property. The amount of impervious cover requested is in excess of that permitted. Why someone would need two tennis courts that contributes to going over the limits in place is not defensible. This doesn't even address the impact of tree removal necessary to build the courts.

Because of the nature of flooding and how water backs up during storms, any development can contribute to crisis. This property is near a bridge that, if flooded, can prevent the escape of residents it was meant to protect. Any strtuctures that alter the flow of water can potentially cause harm to citizens and their property including the owners of 9 Reese. Although the proposal claims this will not happen, there is no way that development will not alter water flow.

I do not understand the need to even mention the need for off street parking. This makes me think the property may be used for other than just family occupancy. Excessive use of tennis courts other than for immediate family will be a noise disturbance to others in the area.

As we continue to try to develop as a dark sky city, the idea of lighted tennis courts does not seem in keeping with that.

I have many concerns about this request and ask the council not to approve it as requested.

Mickie Powers, 23 Sunset Trail--A resident that lives with Williamson Creek ON my property.

I’m writing to share my concerns about the variance request for 9 Reese Drive, listed as Agenda Item #14.

While I understand and respect the desire to build a home on this lot, I am troubled by the scale of the proposed development and the lack of accessible evidence demonstrating that it will not negatively impact surrounding properties, particularly given the sensitivity of the site.

Specifically, I am concerned that:

- The lot lies almost entirely within the Critical Water Quality Zone and 100-year floodplain.

- The proposal includes over 17,000 square feet of impervious cover—well above the 14% threshold recommended by the City Engineer—on a lot with a history of flooding, which only heightens the need for caution and supporting evidence.

While I appreciate the applicant’s assurance that analysis has been conducted to evaluate flood impacts and water flow, the underlying studies have not been made publicly available in detail. Without access to these reports—or a clear summary of their methods, findings, and authorship—it’s difficult for neighbors to independently understand or assess how this development might affect surrounding properties.

Given the sensitive nature of this site—located almost entirely within the floodplain and Critical Water Quality Zone—it is especially important that the community have the opportunity to review the evidence supporting the conclusions presented. In light of the unique conditions surrounding this property, I would welcome the opportunity to review findings that address the potential long-term impacts on water quality, drainage, and the overall resilience of the surrounding neighborhood.
Without access to or citation of these studies, I cannot in good faith support this request. A development of this scale in such an environmentally sensitive area demands a high level of scrutiny and transparency.

All of this said, I would be more open to considering a proposal that reflects the engineer’s recommendation of 14% or less impervious cover and is limited to a modest home, a driveway, and perhaps a small pool or even a single tennis court. That kind of compromise would be more in line with the intent of the city’s land development code, the preservation of water quality, the long-term safety of the surrounding area, and the creation of a home that fits within the scale and neighborly character of the community.

Until those conditions are met and supporting studies are made available for public review, I respectfully oppose the current variance request.

Thank you for your service and for considering community input in your deliberations.

Lauren Alexander
Sunset Trail resident

No on the variance for 9 Reese Drive. Other residents have detailed the issues thoroughly in their comments below, so I'll just add that I'm disappointed in the city engineer that recommended only a reduction in impervious cover to the maximum of 14%, when a massive water-impeding wall is right there. We've just had a recent reminder of what happens when we don't take flood plains seriously, and the property itself has a history of flooding that can't be ignored. This plan WILL endanger neighbors and visiting tennis players.

I urge our engineer, the owner and their planners to read at least the list of purposes at the beginning of the Land Development Code, and come back to us when the development doesn't disregard half of those.

Re: Agenda Item #14 - 9 Reese Dr

I am writing to urge Council to vote NO on the variance proposal in its current form.

As other residents have commented at length, there are too many red flags within this proposal to consider this a good faith effort to develop the property within even a reasonable approximation of the development code requirements.

Why, for example, does the variance request include not one, but two tennis courts? How does this meet the definition of a hardship? The owner letter states that they are a young, growing family, yet the site plans shows nearly 13,000sf of impervious cover dedicated to the courts, versus what appears to be a 1500 sf home. It strains credulity to believe the prioritization of impervious cover for tennis matches their stated intention to occupy the property as a growing family. Even the rendering on the cover sheet shows a gym taking up a full third of the structure. Something isn't adding up given the stated intention and design materials provided.

-Reese Dr resident

I am writing in opposition to item #14 on City Council’s agenda for July 15, 2025, which is a variance request for the property at 9 Reese in Sunset Valley.

As the property is in a sensitive area for flooding and water quality, an increase in impervious cover goes against the environmental and residential qualities of the neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration of this concern.


Valerie Loomis
Sunset Valley resident