Why this request was filed
A newly produced July 27 email from Flock Safety states that the project had “two locations left to install” and describes a right-of-way permitting problem. The email does not identify either location.
Request text
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, please provide records sufficient to identify the location of each of the two remaining Flock camera installations referenced in the July 27, 2026 email from Flock Safety stating that there were “two locations left to install.”
For each of the two cameras, the request seeks the planned or current installation location, including the road, intersection, nearest address, or coordinates reflected in existing records.
Response timeline
August 21, 2026: A follow-up email requested a status update after more than 10 days without a determination, response, or extension notice.
August 24, 2026, 10:16 a.m.: County Counsel Greg Gillott wrote: “Staff have conducted a reasonably diligent search and have not identified any records responsive to your request. The two cameras have not been installed.”
Clarification follow-up
August 24, 2026, 10:30 a.m.: The requester clarified that the request was not limited to cameras that had already been installed, but sought records sufficient to identify the proposed or designated locations for the two installations referenced in the July 27 email.
The follow-up pointed to previously produced permitting correspondence in which a Flock representative discussed difficulty determining ownership of a right-of-way and suggested potentially moving forward without a permit. It asked the County to confirm if no records exist identifying either proposed location, or to clarify if that understanding of the earlier permitting correspondence is incorrect.
Agency clarification response
August 26, 2026, 3:16 p.m.: County Counsel Greg Gillott clarified that the County understood the request to include records discussing or identifying the locations of the two additional cameras. He wrote that no records other than records previously provided had been identified and reiterated that the cameras had not yet been installed.
This clarification narrows the agency’s position: it does not say there were no prior records discussing the installations. It says the search did not identify additional responsive records beyond material already produced.
Requester reply
August 26, 2026, 6:34 p.m.: The requester acknowledged the clarification and reiterated that previously produced correspondence appears to show at least one proposed site had been identified sufficiently for the parties to investigate right-of-way ownership and permitting. The requester stated that the issue could be revisited after the two additional cameras are installed.
Source correspondence
The archive now publishes a readable PDF of the complete four-message exchange and a ZIP containing the four individual redacted EML derivatives. Requester identifying/contact information and transport/authentication headers are removed from the public EML derivatives; agency identities, public agency contact information, dates, subjects, and message text are preserved.
Current status
The County’s August 26 clarification says its search found no additional records beyond those already produced. Earlier released correspondence nevertheless documents discussion of a right-of-way and permitting issue associated with one of the remaining installations. The presently published records do not identify the exact site in that discussion.
The archive therefore treats the location of both remaining installations as unresolved and does not infer either location from the permitting correspondence.
Revision history
- Corrected the clarification exchange dates to August 26, added redacted source correspondence downloads, and retained the response-timing note distinguishing the 10-day CPRA determination period from final production timing.
- Added the August 24 no-responsive-records response and the same-day clarification follow-up concerning proposed or designated locations.
- Follow-up sent requesting a status update after more than 10 days without a determination, response, or extension notice.
- Request submitted and added to the public tracker with requester-identifying information omitted.