Brentwood mistakenly approved an HOA’s Flock surveillance cameras. Now it wants them removed

Brentwood city officials are working to remove Flock surveillance cameras installed by the Shadow Lakes Homeowners Association on public streets after acknowledging they mistakenly approved the system, which has raised privacy concerns among residents. The HOA, part of Foundation Community Management, Inc., said management is the only administrator of the Flock Safety system and data is retained for 30 days, but residents like Ernie Healy and Nathan Fruth questioned the purpose and privacy implications of the cameras.

Getting your Trinity Audio //trinityaudio.ai player ready...BRENTWOOD — City officials are working to remove Flock surveillance cameras installed by a homeowners association on public streets after acknowledging they mistakenly approved the system, which has raised concerns among residents about who can access the license plate data it collects. Some residents in the Shadow Lakes housing development, a golf course community with almost 800 homes, said they were unaware Flock cameras were installed by the Shadow Lakes Homeowners Association https://www.shadowlakeshoa.com/default.php and expressed concerns over possible invasions of privacy and mismanagement of the surveillance data — especially as reports surface across the country of the system’s misuse by public safety agencies. Ernie Healy, who noticed a Flock camera in the neighborhood on Presidio Drive about a month ago, questioned the rationale behind having it there. “As far as law enforcement having access to cameras, I have no issues with that, but HOA putting it in, what’s the purpose? It’s not even for law enforcement,” said Healy. “So why does the HOA need cameras to watch, and what are they doing with that information?” According to an ABC7 report https://abc7news.com/post/neighbors-raise-privacy-concerns-brentwood-hoa-installs-flock-cameras-shadow-lake-housing-development/19666382/ , the HOA said “management” is the “only administrator of the Flock Safety system,” and the data collected is retained for 30 days. The HOA claims homeowners were notified through multiple forms of communication “before and after the installation” of the cameras. The HOA did not specify who management was, nor did it respond to requests for comment from this news organization. According to its website, the HOA is part of Foundation Community Management, Inc. https://www.foundationhoa.com/ , which is based in Walnut Creek. Nathan Fruth, who lives on a street that was not part of the homeowners association, said it was a massive breach of privacy. “This is not a gated community. It’s a public street, and the people driving on it aren’t all members of the HOA. If the city wants cameras on public streets, that’s a decision that should be made by the city with public oversight,” said Fruth. “It shouldn’t be something a private organization can decide on its own.” Tali Hoffman, whose house directly faces a Flock camera, said it felt “pretty invasive.” “I have to keep out of view, not because I am doing anything wrong, but it’s right there. I don’t feel comfortable, and it’s a little creepy,” said Hoffman, who was unaware that a private entity was managing the data. According to the company https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/what-do-flock-cameras-actually-capture , Flock cameras “help identify vehicle details that may assist in investigations, such as a license plate, make, model, color, and other visible characteristics like bike racks, trailers, or toolboxes.” The company says it does not use facial recognition. Nationwide, communities have grappled with the idea that Flock cameras could be used for federal immigration enforcement crackdowns under the Trump administration, unauthorized surveillance and reports of law enforcement personnel misusing the technology for personal use. In response, some Bay Area cities already have cut ties with Flock or tightened restrictions on automated license plate reader cameras. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit that champions civil liberties and user privacy, said homeowner associations and neighborhood associations are “rarely equipped or trained to make responsible decisions” when it comes to surveillance technology. “After all, these people are not bound by the oversight that sometimes accompanies government use of technology — they’re your neighbors,” the foundation previously said https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/flock-license-plate-reader-homeowners-association-safe-problems . “While police are subject to legally binding privacy rules like the Fourth Amendment , HOA members are not. Neighbors could, for instance, use ALPRs to see when a neighbor comes home from work every day. They could see if a house has a regular visitor and what time that person arrives and leaves.” Vincent Joralemon, director of the Life Sciences Law and Policy Center at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, said private organizations can deploy automated license plate readers, but must be aware of the consequences. “A really good example would be if someone did not have good security on this and they made it so that a stalker could hack into one of these things — that is really inappropriate for the HOA,” said Joralemon. “They need to make sure that they have really good security because that’s exactly the kind of thing that has been popping up with these Flock cameras, is people getting inappropriate access.” While some residents worried about data mismanagement and privacy, others believed the Flock cameras in the Shadow Lakes subdivision could enhance security. Lynda Dieffenbach, who lives on a street that was not part of the HOA, said she was “happy” with the camera that was installed on a sidewalk a few feet away from her home. “What can they do? Just check your license plate? It’s not getting your personal information,” she said. According to the ABC7 report, the HOA said security has been an “ongoing concern” for the community, and the decision to implement Flock was due to the association’s “broader effort to improve security while also evaluating the effectiveness and cost of the existing security measures.” Before installing the cameras, the association said it spent about $300,000 annually on 24-hour roving security patrols. “Despite that significant investment in security, the community continued to experience incidents involving crime and property theft. For example, approximately two weeks after the Flock system was fully installed, a homeowner reported that their vehicle had been stolen from their residence,” the association told ABC. The association did not say whether the camera system helped locate the stolen vehicle or identify a suspect. During a City Council discussion on Tuesday, the city said it issued an encroachment permit with “the mistaken understanding” that the association’s application was part of the Brentwood Police Department’s camera program https://www.mercurynews.com/2026/03/19/east-contra-costa-county-cities-to-continue-using-controversial-flock-camera-system/ , which has 62 Flock license plate readers across the city. The city has initiated revocation of the permit associated with cameras installed within the public right-of-way in the Shadow Lakes neighborhood, acting City Manager Terrance Davis told this news organization. Once the permit is revoked, Flock will be required to remove the cameras and “restore the right-of-way to its prior condition,” Davis said. It was unclear how many cameras would need to be removed. “Other than the Shadow Lakes cameras, we have not confirmed Flock cameras in the public right-of-way installed outside of the Brentwood Police Department’s camera program,” Davis said in an email. “Those cameras were approved as part of BPD’s program and are used by BPD in accordance with applicable law enforcement standards and regulations.” Davis said Brentwood is also reviewing permit records to determine if the city has received or approved applications from other HOAs or private entities that have applied for Flock cameras on public rights-of-way. “Cameras on private property do not require an encroachment permit and are not currently regulated by the city,” Davis said.