Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Surveillance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

San Clemente residents warn council against Homeland Security marine surveillance plan

San Clemente City Council · February 18, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Multiple San Clemente residents urged council to halt or better explain a proposed Department of Homeland Security marine surveillance camera installation on city property, citing privacy, lack of oversight and limited public notice; council members discussed public education and potential town-hall outreach.

Several residents told the San Clemente City Council on Feb. 17 they oppose a proposed Department of Homeland Security marine surveillance camera system sited on city property, arguing it threatens privacy and that the city lacks access or oversight over the equipment.

Linda Moore told the council the proposal "will endanger the privacy of all San Clemente citizens" and said the city’s votes to permit the arrangement ignored the majority of speakers opposing it. Susan Rosenberger said she attended earlier hearings and warned that the cameras "have the ability to follow suspicious persons, citizen or not, from the ocean onto land and into our neighborhoods." Patricia Holloway asked the council to reverse course and "prohibit the federal government from monitoring San Clemente residents and others without their knowledge or permission."

Nut graf: The public outcry centered on privacy, lack of city access to monitoring feeds and insufficient public notice; speakers urged rejection or more public engagement. The council did not vote to reverse or adopt a moratorium at the meeting; instead members discussed more public outreach and education.

Council response and next steps: Council members acknowledged concern and debated whether to hold a town hall or other outreach. One council member noted there had been a formal public hearing with staff materials and limited attendance, and others said better public education might reduce misunderstandings. No formal council action to prohibit or to approve changes to the existing agreement was taken at the meeting.

Ending: Residents asked for greater notice and a town hall; council members asked staff to consider outreach and to return with additional information if warranted.