Correspondence - Updated 6/5 — Alameda City Council, June 4, 2024

From: Kristelle Manassian
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Rejection of Agenda Item 6-A
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 6:40:57 PM
Hello Lara,
I would like to again submit my comment for the agenda item accepting the military equipment budget and authorising the purchase of drones. Agenda Item 6-A for the regular city council meeting June 4th
It is pride month. I want to draw attention to the fact that as noted in the Mayor's pride proclamation it was police that raided Stonewall. It was a former police officer that assassinated Harvey Milk and when he was merely sentenced with voluntary manslaughter it was the police that fought the rightly angered protesters and committed a violent raid on a gay bar as retaliation to their protests.

To enumerate the ways in which police have abused their power and equipment in targeting vulnerable populations would take more time than this council can give. As a queer individual knowing the history of police in this country I cannot be assured that they will not use their power and the equipment in their arsenal to target the queer community. Which is far from the only community they target. Disabled individuals, BIPOC individuals, and unhoused individuals are all brutalised by police. In giving police further military equipment such as drones and surveillance vehicles you are only affording them a greater number of ways to target these vulnerable communities.

I know policy regarding police activity that utilises vague language is purposeful because it can thus be used to justify police violence. Even the language stating that military equipment will only be accepted if there is no “reasonable” alternative to fulfill the same objective to keep civilians safe is fraught. What decides whether or not there is no “reasonable” alternative.

The idea of reasonability has been used to cover much of police brutality. Allowing them to act violently towards civilians and infringe on civil liberties when they deem they have “reasonable” cause to do so. If you look at Alameda police guidelines you will find "reasonability" used in place of forming specific activity regulations. I do not have faith that the language surrounding the use of these uncrewed aerial systems will be enough to protect my community.

I cannot consider our community safe. Look to history, why should I as a queer individual feel that my safety is being considered by a system that has specifically targeted me.

Thank you,
- Kristelle Manassian (they/them)
Resident of Alameda
From: Jeffery Emmitt
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] AB 481 Feedback Submission Received Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 4:17:41 PM
Good afternoon, Lara,

Another email regarding tonight’s Council meeting agenda item.

Thanks,

Jeffery Emmitt
Alameda Police Captain
(510) 337-8400

From: OpenForms <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 4:14 PM
To: Jeffery Emmitt <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AB 481 Feedback Submission Received

AB 481 Feedback Submission Received
Submit Feedback
Prior to submitting
feedback, have
you read the
Alameda Police
Department's AB
Yes
481 policy in its
entirety.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to crewless,
remotely piloted,
powered ground
vehicle
I am writing to express my opposition to item 6A,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to armored
personnel carrier,
vehicle with entry
apparatus
attached
I am writing to express my opposition to item 6A,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to specialized
firearms and
ammunition
I am writing to express my opposition to item 6A,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to noise flash
diversionary
devices
I am writing to express my opposition to item 6A,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to munitions
containing tear gas
I am writing to express my opposition to item 6A,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to kinetic energy
weapons and
munitions
I am writing to express my opposition to item 6A,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Contact Information
First and Last
Name Victor H.

Please add a valid
email address [email protected]

From: Vincente Perez
To: Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 6A
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 4:12:10 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to express my opposition to item 6A, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Vincente Perez
Concerned Resident voter and taxpayer
City of Alameda
2263 Santa Clara Ave.

Alameda CA 94501
June 4, 2024
DearMayor, Vice Mayor and Council-members,
I am writing to express my support for the Police Chief's request to purchase two drones equipped with infrared sensing capabilities for our police department. I believe that this investment will signiﬁcantly enhance the safety of our community as well as the safety of our police ofﬁcers.

The primary purpose of these drones is to assist law enforcement in locating suspects in situations where they may be trapped or hiding, whether within a building or in the broader community. This capability can be invaluable in high-risk scenarios, potentially saving lives by allowing ofﬁcers to quickly and accurately identify and apprehend suspects without unnecessary risk.

While I understand there may be concerns regarding the potential misuse of drone technology, I believe these concerns should be addressed separately through clear policies and oversight mechanisms. The immediate focus should be on the evident beneﬁts of deploying drones in critical situations where rapid response is essential.

The use of drones has been demonstrated to improve situational awareness, enhance ofﬁcer safety, and reduce the likelihood of violent confrontations. Other communities that have implemented similar technology have reported positive outcomes, including lives saved and more efﬁcient resolution of dangerous incidents.

I urge the City Council to approve the Police Chief's request for these drones, ensuring that our police department is equipped with the necessary tools to protect our community effectively. I am conﬁdent that with appropriate guidelines and oversight, the beneﬁts will far outweigh any potential risks.

Thank you for considering my perspective on this important matter.

Sincerely,
Joseph C LoParo

JOE LOPARO
510.813.5273 | [email protected] | www.discoveralameda.com | DRE# 01394083 Keller Williams Realty, 2437 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, CA 94501 Each office is independently owned and operated. | DRE#02029039 From: Savanna Cheer
To: Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft Cc: Manager Manager; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 6-A, Tues 6/4/24
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 1:28:43 PM
Hello,
I'd like to add some additional resources for you all to review prior to you taking up item 6-A at this evening's council meeting and expand on points made in my previous correspondence.

I have deep concerns about the City of Alameda giving tax dollar monies to Axon Enterprises, Inc. (the company APD is asking to buy the drones from), and so should you. Below you'll see that I linked an in depth report from Reuters about the alarming company culture at Axon. In addition, Axon recently invested $90 million in an Israeli company called Cellebrite. Cellebrite has been implicated by human rights organizations as endangering human rights around the world. Equally disturbing to the report from Access Now (highlighting Cellebrite technologies used by dictatorships and violent regimes worldwide) is the open question of how Cellebrite tech is being used in the human rights violations happening today in Gaza by the IDF and state of Israel. If Axon and Cellebrite are partners, any business done with Axon is by extension, business done with Cellebrite. If the City of Alameda gives money to Axon it looks like a de facto endorsement of human rights violations.

It all feels like a really bad idea and certainly a turn down a path totally out of line with the City of Alameda's ethics and values.

You are all tasked with the important job of protecting public resources and ensuring city departments spend city money responsibly and ethically. A deal with Axon Enterprises really compromises you as backstops to this type of wrongdoing. Please do not vote yes on the purchase of drones by APD and protect Alameda residents' hard earned money from going towards unethical companies like Axon.

Thank you,
Savanna
On Thu, May 16, 2024 at 12:13 PM Savanna Cheer <[email protected] > wrote:

Hello,
I'm writing to urge Council to reject APD's request for implementation of an Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS) Operations Policy and the purchase of two drones. Surveillance technology like drones are part of an array of policing tactics that contribute to over-policed communities, increased militarization, and a feeling of mistrust of law enforcement by residents. Beyond the specific, local issues related to trust and oversight of this city's police department, there are wider implications to consider with a UAS policy and drone usage.

The laws simply haven't caught up to the tech. Alameda should not jump on a potentially legally disastrous bandwagon just because there's some extra dollars in the police budget or they are asking for new toys. There's a time and a place for innovation, but Alameda residents' first amendment rights are not it.

Second, cost v. benefit. Spending nearly $150,000 on technology that may not even be allowable in the near future (again, the laws haven't caught up) seems like a supreme waste of public money. Beyond that, a critical caveat to APD's policy is that these drones cannot be used out of the eyesight of an APD employee. This is duplicating resources and limits the usefulness of these devices. How useful will these drones actually be? If the argument is around efficiency in some way, that doesn't make any sense since there will have to be an employee on site to use the drone! Local money will be spent paying a cop AND a sky robot. You, City Council, and city staff, speak frequently about the utility of data- driven/proven solutions and best practices to municipal problems. It makes sense to have proof something "works" before trying it, right? If that is important to you, shouldn't you apply that approach to utilizing a new technology as well? Law enforcement drone programs simply do not have enough data behind them to prove their usefulness to a community.

APD's proposed policy on situations to use these drones is exceedingly wide-ranged and seems to include almost any situation. It begs the question, do they even know why they need this? You have all certainly scrutinized and been judicious with climate policies, solutions to homelessness, and public space naming - why should this be any different? Last, what kind of city do we want to live in? On Tuesday you will likely be presented with a series of hypothetical situations from APD about why drones would be a great idea for our community. I would ask that you zoom out a little and think about the door a drone program would open for our community. Do we want to live in a city that prioritizes surveillance and eye-in-the-sky policing? Or would we rather live in a city that prioritizes meeting human needs and building and growing meaningful, healthy programs that enhance peoples' everyday lives? Also, shouldn't we be considering who we are giving public dollars to? Axon Enterprises, the company APD got the quote from, recently acquired a company
called Dedrone. Ironically, this company does aerial defense against... drones! This is setting up some kind of war in the sky between flying robots where Axon and/or police departments decide who has a "good" or a "bad" drone. Beyond being really unsettling to think about, it makes no sense for a city of less than 100,000 people to be giving money to a company engaged in these endeavors. Additionally, last year Reuters published an investigation into
the company practices and culture at Axon, and it's truly disturbing. I wonder if doing business with Axon violates some sort of ethical standard in place for vendors? I definitely do not want my tax dollars to be given to this company any more than they already are, and neither should you!
Please be critical thinkers and put up some backstops to harmful police spending by saying no to police drones in Alameda.

Thanks,
Savanna Cheer
From: Laura Woodard
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 6A
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 12:01:16 PM
Dear Madam Mayor and Councilmembers,
I strongly oppose police use of surveillance drones in Alameda. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Thank you,
Laura Woodard
From: Jeanne Nader
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; City Clerk; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 6A on June 4th Council Agenda
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 11:17:57 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am resending my previous email about the line item carried over from May 21st to tonight's City Council meeting.

I thoroughly object to the police request for drones, a $1million command vehicle and more military equipment and urging you strongly to oppose this item.This IS NOT business as usual.

Drones used to surveil people is a slippery slope to civil rights violations. Drones are routinely used to disproportionately target people of color. Police drones have been used at Black Lives Matter protests in Concord and at Pro-ceasefire rallies in New York CIty.

The City Council must protect the freedom to assemble.

Alameda PD highlights worst case scenarios and examples of sideshows, but what APD writes about arrests is broader than those worst cases and could easily widen the next to criminalize many people. I have often walked by the car shows at the Point and it's basically people gathering joyously to look at cars. In fact one of those events was hosted by the USS Hornet! As to military equipment, the police have not shown accountability in how they use this equipment. Over the last year, Alameda PD pointed a weapon 185% more often than the year before. Alameda Policy policy 300.4.2 governs 'Display of a Firearm'. At Alameda PD's community meeting on military equipment in March, APD was asked how many of these incidents involved an AR-15, but APD didn't provide an answer.

Request for a $1 million command vehicle. What on earth does Alameda PD need this for? The Alameda PD already receives nearly 30% of the city budget. These funds should be used to support our vulnerable Alameda residents through the establishment of cooling centers, more transitional and permanent affordable social housing.

I've lived on the island for 30 years in the West End, raised 2 kids here and have never witnessed the need for more 'military' armed police personnel. This does not keep Alamedans safe but in fact endangers more people - especially my BIPOC neighbors and visitors to Alameda.

Please do the right thing and don't fall into the trap of ceding to noise generated by people motivated by fear and prejudice. Vote NO on item 6A.

Sincerely,
Jeanne Nader
305 Spruce St., Alameda
510-928-0357
From: Nishant Joshi
To: Jennifer Ott; Lara Weisiger
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Drone Discussion
Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 10:31:32 AM

Nishant Joshi
Chief of Police
Alameda Police Department
510-337-8300

From: Joe <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 10:28 AM
To: Nishant Joshi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Drone Discussion

Hi Chief,

I am sorry I will not be able to make the meeting tonight however I am sending the following via email to all council members.

Dear Members of the City Council,
I am writing to express my support for the Police Chief's request to purchase two drones equipped with infrared sensing capabilities for our police department. I believe that this investment will significantly enhance the safety of our community as well as the safety of our police officers.

The primary purpose of these drones is to assistour officers in locating suspects in situations where they may be trapped or hiding, whether within a building or in the broader community.

This capability can be invaluable in high-risk scenarios, potentially saving lives by allowing officers to quickly and accurately identify and apprehend suspects without unnecessary risk.

While I understand there may be concerns regarding the potential misuse of drone technology, I believe these concerns should be addressed separately through clear policies and oversight mechanisms. The immediate focus should be on the evident benefits of deploying drones in critical situations where rapid response is essential.

The use of drones has been demonstrated to improve situational awareness, enhance officer safety, and reduce the likelihood of violent confrontations. Other communities that have implemented similar technology have reported positive outcomes, including lives saved and more efficient resolution of dangerous incidents.

I urge the City Council to approve the Police Chief's request for these drones, ensuring that our police department is equipped with the necessary tools to protect our community effectively. I am confident that with appropriate guidelines and oversight, the benefits will far outweigh any potential risks.

Thank you for considering my perspective on this important matter. I am sure there are many others and all must be weighed and considered.

Sincerely,
Joe

"It is not what you do for your children, but what you have taught them to do for themselves and their communities that will make them successful human beings."

Follow me:

Facebook
• Instagram • LinkedIn • Twitter • Youtube • Pinterest

From: Jeffery Emmitt
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] AB 481 Feedback Submission Received Date: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 8:26:40 AM
Good morning, Lara,
I received this over the weekend. It’s related to the upcoming council agenda item.

Thank you,
Jeffery Emmitt
Alameda Police Captain
(510) 337-8400
From: OpenForms <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2024 13:27
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AB 481 Feedback Submission Received

AB 481 Feedback Submission Received
Submit Feedback
Prior to submitting
feedback, have you
read the Alameda
Police
Department's AB
481 policy in its
entirety.

Yes
Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to crewless,
remotely piloted,
powered ground
vehicle
I am deeply concerned about how the use of drones
will encroach on Alameda citizens' fundamental right
to privacy. Further, I am also concerned about how
the militarization of the APD will not make Alameda
safer, it will make our communities of color more
afraid of police brutality.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to armored
personnel carrier,
vehicle with entry
apparatus attached
Why does APD need an armored personal carrier
vehicle? What threat is so large in the suburban town
of Alameda that the police need an armored vehicle?
Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to specialized
firearms and
ammunition
I am deeply concerned that these will be used
against protestors. I have seen with my own eyes,
the damage that things like rubber bullets do to
protestors. They can make you blind, bash in your
skull, etc. If you have a conscience you will vote
against the further militarization of Alameda police.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to noise flash
diversionary
devices
After witnessing police across the country brutalize
student protestors for the last few months, I do not
have faith that APD will use these devices
responsibly.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to munitions
containing tear gas
I witnessed the excessive use of tear gas at protests
during the 2020 Black Lives Matter movement and
the current protest movement for a free Palestine.

More often than not, police are unable to responsibly
use tear gas and will harm peaceful protestors.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to kinetic energy
weapons and
munitions
I am deeply concerned about how these weapons will
terrorize Alameda, especially Alameda's communities
of color.

Contact Information
First and Last
Name Mayuu Kashimura
Please add a valid
email address [email protected]
From: Ginger Lua
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 6A
Date: Monday, June 3, 2024 8:53:17 PM
I am writing to express my opposition to item 6A, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support the acquisition of drones for the reasons stated in my previous email on 5/21 (included below).

I have significant concerns about this potential acquisition as well as the scarcely modified UAS attached to item 6A. I hope that council will seriously consider the concerns of the citizens who stand in opposition to this surveillance technology and the inadequate UAS that accompanies it.

Thank you,
Ginger
On Tue, May 21, 2024, 9:02 AM Ginger Lua <[email protected] > wrote:

I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support the acquisition of drones as possessing this equipment can easily lead to the pervasive and unnecessary surveillance of our community. While the current UAS policy may purport to prevent this from happening, the likelihood of this becoming our genuine reality is greatly increased once these surveillance tools are in the community. If the recommendation to authorize the City Manager to purchase the two drones is going to be seriously considered during the meeting on 5/21/24, I ask that you give thought to the following questions/concerns prior to your decision.

1. The UAS policy states that the drone will not be equipped with facial recognition technology. Will drone footage still be reviewed and/or analyzed with software containing facial recognition technology?

It may be worthwhile to require that this information be included in the UAS policy and require that it be updated when new/additional software is acquired that will be used in conjunction with the UAS.

3. The policy lists "random surveillance activities" under prohibited use. Why then is the UAS video recording enabled for the entirety of the flight and not only once the UAS has arrived at the site of the incident? If the UAS is recording before and after the incident for which it is permitted to deploy, would recording during this time not be akin to random surveillance? I think that this policy of recording during the entirety of the flight may need to be reevaluated and refined, especially under permitted deployment circumstances (p) and (q) which have a high potential for recording members of the public who are not knowingly and/or willingly involved in the activity that triggers the permitted deployment of the UAS. (p) Special events where there is intelligence that there is risk to public safety. (q) When there is probable cause to believe that the UAS will record images of a place, thing, condition, or event and that those images tend to show a felony has been committed or tends to show that a particular person has committed a felony.

4. I am particularly concerned about the use of the UAS during future public gatherings, especially events like political protest marches and rallies which fall within our First Amendment right. After reviewing the UAS policy, I am not confident that there are sufficient safeguards for the use of the UAS in these situations.

Based on the policy, the UAS shall be permitted to be deployed for "(p) Special events where there is intelligence that there is risk to public safety." Should the special event where "there is intelligence that there is risk to public safety" be a First Amendment assembly, there is nothing in the policy explicitly protecting our community members who are choosing to exercise their First Amendment right from surveillance of their lawful actions.

Additionally, the phrase "intelligence that there is a risk to public safety" is incredibly broad which creates the opportunity for prevalent use of UAS at special events.

I highly encourage that more specific terms for UAS deployment during public gatherings be included in the current UAS policy that includes language such as “recording First Amendment assemblies shall not be conducted for the purpose of identifying and recording the presence of individual participants who are not engaged in unlawful conduct.” The ACLU has written this recent article with recommendations on how to protect our community's right to assemble which is relevant to both Items 3 & 4:
https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Curbs-Needed-On-Police-Drone- Surveillance-of-Public-Gatherings-FINAL-2.pdf

5. Per the correspondence between City Council Member Trish Herrera Spencer and Police Chief Nishant Joshi, it was stated that APD supports marking the UAS with APD identifiers.

Is this something that will be written into the UAS policy prior to equipment acquisition? Will the APD identifiers on the UAS be visible to all persons within recording distance of the device?
While I do not support item 7B, I ask that you please consider the concerns listed above if you are inclined to support this item. I appreciate your time and consideration for all the concerns.

Sincerely,
Ginger - Resident of Alameda
From: Nishant Joshi
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Jennifer Ott
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Technology Tools
Date: Monday, June 3, 2024 11:07:04 AM
Tomorrow’s item

Nishant Joshi
Chief of Police
Alameda Police Department
510-337-8300

From: Laura Underdahl <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 8:34 AM
To: Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc: Jennifer Ott <[email protected]>; Nishant Joshi <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Technology Tools

Good Morning City Council Members

Our city's safety is a main concern to me.

I have noticed with the increase of technology, there are tools which could help our Police Department immensely in specific situations.

Various cities across California, including Oakland, have drones to assist in activities that would otherwise cause risk or danger to our police officers.

With technology advancement, it is essential we move forward with technologies that will improve Alameda and make our city safer. Drones are very useful in identifying dangerous side shows and other criminal activity.

I've researched and found there's an association called LEDA - (Law Enforcement Drone Association) created by experienced police officers who developed protocol and have demonstrated the usefulness of drones and how they can be used efficiently in police work.

I would like this letter to be read at tomorrows City Council meeting to bring awareness of technology tools we should invest in for our Police Department.

Sincerely,

Laura Underdahl-Vella

From: Kristen Fu
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 6A
Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 11:01:45 AM
Hello Alameda City Council Members,
I am a resident of Alameda, and I am writing to express my opposition to item 6A, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do NOT support the acquisition of drones absent of very significant restrictions, including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Thank you,
--
Kristen Fu (she/her)
1912 Willow Street
From: Trish Spencer
To: City Clerk
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT: for 6/4/24 Agenda Item 6A : Drones and Military Equipment Date: Wednesday, May 29, 2024 10:31:06 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gig Codiga <[email protected]>
Date: May 29, 2024 10:16 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] SUPPORT: for 6/4/24 Agenda Item 6A : Drones and Military Equipment
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Nishant Joshi <[email protected]>,Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>
Cc:

Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Police Chief - Support for 6/4/24 Agenda
For the Safety of People, Fire/Police and even Perpetrators: One life saved...

Drones will provide quicker Eyes On to assess the situation, monitor, and identify emergency situations
As criminals (syndicates) are getting smarter and using advanced technology, drones will act as a deterrent/ preventative tool
Helps Firefighters to send the right resources to a fire or other firefighter activities Imagine: Instead of a car chase (even limited) a drone can follow the suspected car/truck to their home base or allow for police to head them off, without a car chase/follow which could risk the injury of a person/property in the way For Efficiency of Resources: Personnel, Emergency Response and Prosecutions:

Less on site presence requirement - stationing a police car and officers at a potential side show or a massive event
Monitoring of Natural or non-Natural Disasters
Enhance imagery: helps convicting the right people; assess situations/resources needed
Locating lost / stolen goods through quiet observation
Ability for a two-way conversation
Reduces need for helicopter/personnel involvement
Protocols: From the presentation and comments (Trish and people) protocols seem to be developing, and will be updated continuously as appropriate:

It is important to protect privacy and misuse of such observation tools APD and City Council have reviewed and incorporated appropriate pieces of existing protocols for various governmental / semi governmental agencies and entities (ACLU, AUSD, Secured Justice, etc) to address privacy issues
Military Equipment: Only Necessary Equipment for our police to perform their duty and obligation to Protect and Serve:

Some equipment, whether called military or police equipment, is necessary to address the numerous emergencies today to protect people, police, firefighters, perpetrators.

Unfortunately, there are situations that require such specialized equipment: E.G. Live shooter, hostages, bomb threat (ugh to any of these)
Please Accept the Recommendation on the Annual Military Equipment Report for the Alameda Police Department and Continue to Allow the Department to Use and Maintain the Equipment Previously Adopted; and Introduction of Ordinance Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy for Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) (Drones) for the Alameda Police Department; and Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Purchase Two Drones from Axon Enterprise, Inc.

Best Regards
Be Well
Gig Codiga
650-922-0554
Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up ange r.

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message.

Permission is granted to post as a communication on the City's agenda.

From: Ivan Jiang
To: CityCouncil-List; Nishant Joshi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Side Car Shows on West Alameda
Date: Thursday, May 23, 2024 6:50:45 PM
Hi this is a follow up email,
I fully support the usage of drones to patrol the area and prevent sidecar shows from happening there.

Please provide the resources for the Alameda Police department to proceed with their usage of drones.

I am a resident of Alameda point - I live breath and experience this regularly and would like immediate action to be taken. More neighbors will reach out to express the same concern and this demand.

Thanks,
Ivan
Ivan Jiang
Call/Text: (626) 678-7249
On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 8:48 AM Ivan Jiang <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Alameda’s city council members,
I am a resident at Alameda Point (Leeward) and would like to complain about the side car shows on West Alameda. Not only are the shows extremely noisy, but they are extremely dangerous as these cars zoom through our streets without care for pedestrians.

Our community has quite a few families with newborns. It would only take a small accident for a fatal one to occur.

I plead with you to please crackdown on the sidecar shows and do not let them use the west side of Alameda as a gathering spot for their show. Please enforce and process these shows as criminal offenses.

Thanks,
Ivan
Ivan Jiang
Call/Text: (626) 678-7249
From: nedermg
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on agenda item 7b
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 8:36:08 PM
I am a resident of Alameda and I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support the acquisition of drones including their use to criminalize people of color at sideshows and other public spaces.

Sincerely,
Mary Nederhood
From: Jennifer Rakowski
To: City Clerk; Manager Manager; Nishant Joshi; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 7B- police equipment
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 6:59:45 PM
UAV’s
Half the city police forces in Alameda County do not own police (UAV’s) drones including cities with larger populations than Alameda such as Berkeley and Livermore.

Albany- does not own police drones
Berkeley- does not own police drones
Emeryville - does not own police drones
Livermore- does not own police drones
Piedmont does not own police drones
Pleasanton does not own police drones
Accessing the 150+ drones already owned by the Sheriff's department has proven to be a reasonable and cost effective approach taken by these cities.

The fact that this was not part of the picture presented by the police department is problematic and underlines why civilian oversight and transparency of AB 481 is necessary.

The use of drones as a de-escalation tool has also been remarked on as a selling point. It was noted that they could be utilized instead of K-9 units but no outline to reduce use of police K-9’s has been shared.

Command Vehicle
It is through reviewing other cities required disclosures that the 1.3 million dollar price tag of a command vehicle becomes clear. Alameda Police department stated only that they would seek grant funds for its acquisition and have not articulated its proposed cost, use policy, or why it and not the fire department is the right host department. Similar grant acquisitions resulted in an unusually large quantity of military equipment being acquired by the city of Petaluma. FEMA grants are one key grant source under the emergency management performance grants. But what has not been shared are the alternative equipment that these grants can be used for. Equipment including, respiratory protective equipment, medical equipment, power generators, animal care, food and shelter systems and many other authorized uses.

Equipment previously authorized
I have reviewed the annual reports and use incidents of dozens of cities around the Bay Area and across the state. I have not yet seen any other department with a clear pattern of half of its deployments being outside the authorizing city. While equipment is sometimes shared this systemic pattern of authorizing equiptment and using it consistently in Oakland should trouble us all.

We should also be seek answers to increased displays in the community of authorized rifles. When questions after the first community meeting on military equipment, the Chief stated that increase police staffing is expected to raise proportionally the number of time guns are pointed at people. What military equipment was deployed during the swatting incident in April 2024 at Encinal School and early in August 2023 on Bay Farm. What precautions is the department utilizing to not have the weapons that the city purchases weaponized against the community.

City Council's responsibility
This law was made necessary because the acquisition of military style equipment had become commonplace and local government officials and the public needed clear information
about such acquisitions. For example, in 2014, the LA Unified School District received sixty-one M16 assault rifles and three M79 grenade launchers. Cities and County agencies aquired armored vehicles and command vehicles using Federal grant funding, without proper public disclosure or clear local need. At the time of the legislation, over $11 million worth of military equipment was in the hands of local police forces across the Bay Area,since then the costs have grown and communities feel the impact as funds are diverted away from other needs.

This legislation had broad public support including Women’s Policy Institute of the Women’s Foundation California, ACLU Alliance for Boys and Men of Color,American Friends Service Committee, Asian Solidarity Collective,Bay Rising,Bend the Arc: Jewish Action,Brady Campaign, California Faculty AssociationCalifornia Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, California Latinas for Reproductive Justice, California Public Defenders Association, Center for Empowering Refugees and Immigrants, Council on American-Islamic Relations, California, County of Santa Clara, Disability Rights California, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, Family Violence Law Center, Public Health Advocate, Young Women's Freedom Center just to name a fraction of verified supporters.

We owe it to those who put their trust in local government to ask for transparency and clear complete information. We should ask hard questions and reject the procurement of equipment that falls short of this standard.

Jennifer Rakowski
From: Qurratulain "Q" Sajid
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Strong NO on Agenda Item 7B//Divest from Criminalizing Our Communities! Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 6:21:28 PM
Hello Alameda Mayor and Council members,
My name is Q Sajid and I have been an active Alameda resident.

I am writing to express my strong opposition to item 7B tonight, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones.

I do not support funding Alameda Police Department to receive more militarization equipment.

As a resident of color this makes me feel less safe in our city. There is also new data released that shows local police departments such as San Francisco's Police Department have failed to comply with a state law governing the use of military equipment. The failure of police oversight, transparency, and accountability makes our streets unsafe.

I fear for the young children of color that will be criminalized and surveilled if more funding went to police drone equipment. I urge you to vote NO on Item 7B for our collective safety.

Thank you,
Q Sajid
From: Teresa Igler
To: Tony Daysog
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 6:07:16 PM
Hi Vice Mayor Daysog,
I am slightly concerned that using military equipment to police youth and communities of color is ‘way cool’, and I look forward to discussing further this evening! Kind regards,
Teresa
On May 19, 2024, at 6:51 PM, Tony Daysog <[email protected]> wrote:

I think the why we ste going to use drone in stopping side shows is way cool.

With the information we gather via stones, we van then use that high definition footage to prosecute side show participants. That's really cool in my book: and we can have our very own city attorney's office prosecute cases in court, and not wait around for the County DA.

From: Teresa Igler <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2024 4:07:46 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B

Hello,
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

I am looking forward to Tuesday’s city council meeting to discuss this further! Kind regards,
Teresa Igler
From: Jeffery Emmitt
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] AB 481 Feedback Submission Received Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 5:44:45 PM
Hi Lara,
Just received this. Associated with Agenda item 7b.

Thank you,
Jeffery Emmitt
Alameda Police Captain
(510) 337-8400
From: OpenForms <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 17:42
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AB 481 Feedback Submission Received

AB 481 Feedback Submission Received
Submit Feedback
Prior to submitting feedback, have
you read the Alameda Police
Department's AB 481 policy in its
entirety.

Yes
Questions, concerns, or complaints
related to crewless, remotely piloted,
powered ground vehicle
There is ZERO need for a crewless,
remotely piloted, powered ground
vehicle in Alameda.

Questions, concerns, or complaints
related to armored personnel carrier,
vehicle with entry apparatus
attached
There is ZERO need for armored
personnel carriers or vehicles with
entry apparatus attached in
Alameda.

Questions, concerns, or complaints
related to specialized firearms and
ammunition
There is ZERO need for specialized
firearms and ammunition in
Alameda.

Questions, concerns, or complaints
related to noise flash diversionary
devices
Noise flash diversionary devices
will cause more issues than
anything else.

Questions, concerns, or complaints
related to munitions containing tear
gas
There is ZERO need for munitions
containing tear gas in Alameda.

Questions, concerns, or complaints
related to kinetic energy weapons
and munitions
There is ZERO need for kinetic
energy weapons and munitions in
Alameda.

Contact Information
First and Last Name Arely Mendoza
Please add a valid email address [email protected] From: Arely Mendoza
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 4:56:02 PM
To whom it may concern:

My name is Arely Mendoza.

I am writing to express my HIGH OPPOSITION to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve unnecessary police purchase and use of ridiculous surveillance drones. I do NOT support acquisition of drones, absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Thank you for your time.

From: Kenneth Aglubat
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7B
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 2:35:40 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to support item 7B on today's agenda. Crime has had an outsized impact on our hotel operations in Harboy Bay. We are experiencing stolen vehicles, break ins and property crime daily. Many corporate accounts and leisure travelers have fled our general area due to the increase in crime which is having a meaningful impact on our business and therefore our ability to generate TOT revenue.
7D would help us retain clients and increase business, therefore bolstering the general fund.

Making Alameda a safer place for residents and businesses should be a top priority.

In good health,
Kenneth
Kenneth J Aglubat
Regional Director of Operations
P.O. Box 2548, Oakland, CA 94614, USA
C +1-562-253-3399 E [email protected]
From: Rob Doud
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public Safety 7B
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 2:17:53 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Members of the City Council:

I am writing to support item 7B on today's agenda. We built our office in Alameda and moved many of our office employees from Oakland office to our new office in Alameda due to the high crime in Oakland. Since our move, our Alameda office has been broken into twice and computers stolen. In our Alameda office parking lot, we have had multiple car break ins and even a cadillac converter stolen in broad daylight. None of these incidents happened to us in Oakland. I never thought I would be looking back on that decision and think that we would be victims more here in Alameda.

We are proud of our involvement in Charitable organizations helping those truly in need that have the desire to improve their lives. The time has come when the small minority that break the laws, dump illegally, destroy personal property with selfish acts like graffiti must end.

We need to take care of the majority of our citizens, and prioritise their needs for a safe and clean city. Short of accomplishing this, those that care, those that pay our taxes will continue to move out of our City, out of our State and replaced with those that don't care, which will only lead to more problems spiraling out of control.
7D would help us restore our beautiful City.

Making Alameda a safer place for residents and businesses should be a top priority.

Thank you.

Robert Doud
Harbor Linx, Inc.

McGuire and Hester
O: 510-924-4199 x 1102 D: 510-254-5002
2810 Harbor Bay Pkwy, Suite B, Alameda, CA. 94502
From: Dhruv Patel
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Hampton / Home2 Suites Support Item 7D Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 1:11:41 PM
I would like restate my support for this item on todays agenda.

Dhruv Patel
President and COO
Ridgemont Hospitality
P.O. Box 2548, Oakland, CA 94614, USA
C +
1-510-407-0308 E [email protected]
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 4:11 PM Dhruv Patel <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Honorable Members of the City Council, I am writing to support item 7D on tomorrow's agenda. Crime has had an outsized impact on our hotel operations in Harboy Bay. We are experiencing stolen vehicles, break ins and property crime daily. Many corporate accounts and leisure travelers have fled our general area due to the increase in crime which is having a meaningful impact on our business and therefore our ability to generate TOT revenue. 7D would help us retain clients and increase business, therefore bolstering the general fund.

Making Alameda a safer place for residents and businesses should be a top priority.

Dhruv Patel
Dhruv Patel
President and COO

Ridgemont Hospitality
P.O. Box 2548, Oakland, CA 94614, USA
C +
1-510-407-0308 E [email protected]
From: Kristelle Manassian
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 1:09:21 PM
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones.

I do not feel assured of my personal or community safety even with current equipment the police have and their restrictions on that equipment's use. It is dangerous to think of first accepting more military equipment without having an honest and thorough discussion of its possible mishandling and harm to the community.

I'm especially concerned for people of colour in our communities and disabled members of our communities that already suffer from police over involvement in their lives which causes fractures and instability in our greater community.

Alameda police, I understand, are required to disclose all military equipment they have and ones they are hoping to attain. I think this is not enough information to assure the public of their safety. The police should also be required to make explicitly clear in a public forum with directly relevant paperwork the ways in which they are legally allowed to use their equipment.

I have read some of the current restrictions of usage for police equipment and am disturbed by the vagueness of what situations call for military equipment (specifically drones) usage. There needs to be a conversation around who shapes police policies. As I understand it Lexipol is often a resource used. Has there been an investigation into their effectiveness at ensuring the protection and well-being of the communities that their police policies are used within? Police departments should act within community interest and well-being. Further military equipment should not be attained if it can cause harm to our community. - Kristelle Manassian (they/them)
Resident of Alameda
From: Nishant Joshi
To: Jennifer Ott; Lara Weisiger; Ashley Zieba
Subject: FW: Support for Agenda Item 2024-4040 in today"s meeting - Drones for the APD Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 11:03:49 AM

Nishant Joshi
Chief of Police
Alameda Police Department
510-337-8300

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 11:03 AM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>; Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]> Cc: Nishant Joshi <[email protected]>; Matthew McMullen <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for Agenda Item 2024-4040 in today's meeting - Drones for the APD

Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
I am writing to you to encourage your support of toady’s agenda item 2024-4040 . Please vote to
fund the drone technology outlined in this proposal.

The first City Council Key Priority is “Preparing Alameda for the Future”. Drone technology is not future technology, it is the technology of today. APD needs the tools of today to provide the best service possible now and in the future.

Thank you for your commitment to the City of Alameda.

Regards,
John Jensen
Mobile: 510-697-4658

LAM RESEARCH CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, (collectively, "E-mail Transmission") may be subject to one or more of the following based on the associated sensitivity level: E-mail Transmission (i) contains confidential information, (ii) is prohibited from distribution outside of Lam, and/or (iii) is intended solely for and restricted to the specified recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.

Confidential – Limited Access and Use
From: Joel Schwartz
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 9:45:05 AM
I am writing to express my opposition to item
7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Sincerely,
Joel Schwartz
Resident of Alameda
From: Nishant Joshi
To: Jennifer Ott; Lara Weisiger; Ashley Zieba
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Council Meeting May 21, 2024 Endorsement for the acquisition of drones by Alameda Police Department
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 9:35:18 AM
Nishant Joshi
Chief of Police
Alameda Police Department
510-337-8300
Begin forwarded message:

From: fIA <[email protected]>
Date: May 21, 2024 at 9:34:26 AM PDT
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]> Cc: Tony Daysog <[email protected]>, Tracy Jensen
<[email protected]>, Trish Spencer <[email protected]>, Malia Vella <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Council Meeting May 21, 2024 Endorsement for the acquisition of drones by Alameda Police Department
To Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Daysog, Council Members Jensen, Herrera- Spencer and Vella.

I would like to reiterate my support and endorsement of Alameda PD acquiring drones for deployment to enhance their capabilities and efficiency. Employing the latest developments in drone technology will support the public safety mission to protect and serve our community.

My name is Frank I Alliger and I reside at 3038 Thompson Avenue and have lived on the island since 1977. I retired from the Oakland Police Department after 32 years of service.

As the Manager of the Identification Division, one of the units I created and directed was the Mobile Field Force Video Teams deployed for crowd control and special operations on holidays involving sideshows in Oakland. The use of video was essential in providing documentation, gathering evidence and real time information of activities both at crowd level and from elevated locations.

The advent of the deployment of drones to accomplish these tasks is a game changer. The information available from use of drones enables the operator to observe and document from the air directly to the command post. It not only provides comprehensive information in evidence gathering, it also provides the scene commander with real time information of crowd size, vehicles involved.

The drone also offers mobility not afforded by teams on the ground. Drones in addition to video capture and real time information also have the capacity for auxiliary applications using thermal imaging, deployment of light payloads as well as being utilized for night time operations.

One of the added benefits of acquiring drones for the department’s use is increased officer safety, not having to place personnel in hazardous situations, whether during crowd control, sideshows or catastrophic event like a fire or water situation. Drones provide law enforcement with many solutions usually only accomplished by helicopter, at a substantial savings. They are a necessary tool in contemporary law enforcement and would greatly assist our police department personnel with the latest technology needed to ensure optimum level of safety for our community.

These drones are needed to ensure the department has the latest technology to carry out their responsibilities to safeguard all of Alameda and our citizens.

Respectfully,
fIA
Frank I Alliger
Alameda, CA
From: Jeanne Nader
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; City Clerk; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7B on 5/21 Council Agenda
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 9:21:16 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I thoroughly object to the police request for drones, a $1million command vehicle and more military equipment and urging you strongly to oppose this item.This IS NOT business as usual.

Please do the right thing and don't fall into the trap of ceding to noise generated by people motivated by fear and prejudice. Vote NO on item 7B.

Sincerely,
Jeanne Nader
305 Spruce St., Alameda
510-928-0357
From: Ginger Lua
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 9:03:32 AM
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support the acquisition of drones as possessing this equipment can easily lead to the pervasive and unnecessary surveillance of our community. While the current UAS policy may purport to prevent this from happening, the likelihood of this becoming our genuine reality is greatly increased once these surveillance tools are in the community. If the recommendation to authorize the City Manager to purchase the two drones is going to be seriously considered during the meeting on 5/21/24, I ask that you give thought to the following questions/concerns prior to your decision.

2. Does the UAS have both video and audio recording capabilities? If so, what type of software will be used to analyze the video and/or audio recordings? A listing of the software application(s), including name and purpose, that will be used alongside the UAS would be helpful for understanding how APD intends to utilize and analyze the requested equipment. It may be worthwhile to require that this information be included in the UAS policy and require that it be updated when new/additional software is acquired that will be used in conjunction with the UAS.

I highly encourage that more specific terms for UAS deployment during public gatherings be included in the current UAS policy that includes language such as “recording First Amendment assemblies shall not be conducted for the purpose of identifying and recording the presence of individual participants who are not engaged in unlawful conduct.” The ACLU has written this recent article with recommendations on how to protect our community's right to assemble which is relevant to both Items 3 & 4: https://www.aclu.org/wp- content/uploads/2024/03/Curbs-Needed-On-Police-Drone-Surveillance-of-Public-Gatherings- FINAL-2.pdf

5. Per the correspondence between City Council Member Trish Herrera Spencer and Police Chief Nishant Joshi, it was stated that APD supports marking the UAS with APD identifiers.

Sincerely,
Ginger - Resident of Alameda
From: morgan kimble
To: City Clerk; Manager Manager; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 8:43:49 AM
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Sincerely,
Morgan
Resident of Alameda
From: Claire Valderama-Wallace
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on agenda item 7B
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 8:17:25 AM
My name is Claire Valderama-Wallace. I grew up here, live here with my family, and my children go to school here. Increasing the militarization of the police does not keep us safe.

When I see an increased presence of law enforcement I do not feel safe, nor do my children.

This equipment enables aggressive tactics used locally and around the world to control, criminalize, and violently harm people deemed dangerous - code for poor people, unhoused people, people of color, for example.

Building on the roots of slave patrols which became local "law" enforcement, the development of militarized strategies were used by the U.S. military in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War, brought back here to the Bay Area, and is increasingly advanced, protected, and funded around the world. We see these tactics used in Gaza. We see this is Antioch. We see these tactics used against communities in East Oakland. What is Alameda PD doing in Oakland?
Pause and listen to the many calls against increasing militarization under the guise of safety. Don’t give in, don’t perpetuate fear mongering. Resist tendencies toward being fascinated with high tech equipment. Make no mistake - these are developed to control and harm. There is no ethical use for this equipment. Our children deserve to live in a city that values true safety. I am absolutely against Alameda using any funds - any resources - for getting better at surveilling, criminalizing, and controlling people that police forces consistently silence, repress, and harm.
--
Claire Valderama-Wallace, PhD, MPH, RN
she/her/siya
Associate Professor
Department of Nursing - Cal State East Bay
From: Rosie Rumberger
To: City Clerk; Manager Manager; [email protected]; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 8:13:58 AM
Hello,
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Sincerely,
Rosette R
Resident of Alameda, Gold Coast
From: Jeffery Emmitt
To: Lara Weisiger
Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] AB 481 Feedback Submission Received Date: Tuesday, May 21, 2024 6:34:56 AM
Good morning, Lara,

I received this email last night. It’s correspondence related to City Council agenda item 7B.

Thanks,

Jeffery Emmitt
Alameda Police Captain
(510) 337-8400

From: OpenForms <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2024 11:07 PM
To: Jeffery Emmitt <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AB 481 Feedback Submission Received

AB 481 Feedback Submission Received
Submit Feedback
Prior to submitting
feedback, have
you read the
Alameda Police Yes
Department's AB
481 policy in its
entirety.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to crewless,
remotely piloted,
powered ground
vehicle
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to armored
personnel carrier,
vehicle with entry
apparatus
attached
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to specialized
firearms and
ammunition
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to noise flash
diversionary
devices
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to munitions
containing tear gas
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Questions,
concerns, or
complaints related
to kinetic energy
weapons and
munitions
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B,
which would accept the annual military equipment
report and approve police purchase and use of
surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of
drones absent very significant restrictions including
their use for the criminalization of people at
sideshows.

Contact Information
First and Last
Name Michelle Deiro
Please add a valid
email address [email protected]

Alameda City Council
May 20, 2024

Regarding: Agenda Item 7B, City Council meeting 5/21/2024

Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Council Members:

I am in opposition to agenda item 7B that would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones.

It is my conviction that any acquisition of drones must be accompanied by very significant restrictions as to their use, including prohibition of drone use for the criminalization of people at sideshows and use for surveillance of protestors that are after all exercising their right to free speech and assembly. It is my strong opinion that drone use should be strictly limited to search and rescue operations.

Honestly, reading through the 709 Military Equipment policy materials in tonight’s meeting packet has me all upset. These materials are meant to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirement of military equipment in the city of Alameda. All that flashes through my mind as I read are images of the ongoing brutal military attack on civilian populations in Gaza and the West Bank, Palestine, the brutal attack on university students exercising their right to assemble and engage in free speech here in the US, and numerous episodes of military style violence against civilians, predominately people of color, over the years in our communities. Therefore I call for strict and significant restrictions on drone use.

Beyond the issue of drones, I call for more information about the Alameda Police Department Display of Firearm report, particularly in relation to use of AR-15 weapons. A community meeting on military equipment that I attended in March included a question about the number of incidents that involve AR-15 weapons and no answer was given.

I urge you to speak out and shape policy that will uphold our civil liberties and prevent over-policing in our city. We need full transparency and accountability in terms of this year’s military equipment report.

Thank you.

Paula Rainey
Alameda resident

From: Emily Lin
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 10:29:31 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members -
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions, including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Peace,
Emily
--
Rev. Emily Lin
(She/Her/Hers)
The information contained within this email is considered confidential unless otherwise noted. Please do not forward the contents without first obtaining explicit consent. Thank you.

From: C B
To: City Clerk; Manager Manager; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 9:45:26 PM
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

From: Molly Fisher
To: CityCouncil-List; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO to Agenda Item 7B
Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 7:40:17 PM
Hello Councilmembers,
I am writing to express my strong disapproval and fear of agenda item 7B. This recommendation would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. Militarizing our police and surveilling communities of color in Alameda will do nothing to promote "public safety”. This proposal will only make us all unsafe and vulnerable to police violence.

Your constituent,
Molly Fisher
From: Nishant Joshi
To: Jennifer Ott; Lara Weisiger; Ashley Zieba
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Drones for Alameda PD
Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 6:05:02 PM
Nishant Joshi
Chief of Police
Alameda Police Department
510-337-8300
Begin forwarded message:

From: Dorothy Jensen <[email protected]>
Date: May 20, 2024 at 5:41:21 PM PDT
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>, Tony Daysog <[email protected]>, Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>, Trish Spencer <[email protected]>, Malia Vella <[email protected]>, Nishant Joshi <[email protected]>, Matthew McMullen
<[email protected]>
Cc: "John A. Jensen" <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Drones for Alameda PD
Dear Mayor, City Council and Chief Joshi
I would like to express my support of the drones for the Police Department. This small amount of money will provide effective policing and monitoring to keep our small town of Alameda safe. This cost is cheaper than one full time police officer and will be available to the department 24/7. It will help the police stop unlawful roadshows and reduce the need for car chases, allowing for the police to reduce crime and make Alameda safer. Please vote to fund the purchase of two drones for the police department.

Sincerely,
Dorothy Jensen
510-681-6882
From: Claudia Lam
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 4:47:41 PM
Dear City Council members,
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows!
Sincerely,
Claudia
From: Brooke Atherton El-Amine
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] No to militarized police surveilance in Alameda (No to drones - item 7B) Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 4:41:37 PM
Hello City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Brooke Atherton El-Amine
Alameda resident
Member of Alameda Families and Friends for Ceasefire
From: Sheelah Weaver
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 12:31:19 PM
I understand that the Alameda City Council is discussing purchasing a drone to address the sideshows at the old naval base using surveillance tools, adding to the Alameda police department’s already considerable arsenal of tools to watch people with. I also understand that this and other technological and military style police equipment is used more often in Oakland than Alameda.

I have resided in Oakland for more than half a century. Oakland residents do not benefit from this use of Alameda resources. Oakland police do not prevent or solve crimes that residents and businesses suffer.

Two weeks ago my neighborhood coffee shop was burglarized and vandalized. Two months ago my daughter’s car was stolen and rendered unusable. Neither have the slightest hope that these crimes will be investigated or that they will stop.

Two years ago my next door neighbor was robbed at gunpoint by 4 males as she exited her garage. For the next few days she followed the movement of her cell phone around the district. She informed the police of this, and they laughed at her.

What the Oakland police department … the largest recipient of Oakland public funds … excels at, is over spending. Oakland’s current, $177 million projected deficit is this year’s example.

Is Alameda so wealthy and problem free that your public safety resources can be squandered in Oakland?
Do we really want a police state?
Respectfully,
Sheelah Weaver
Your neighbor
From: Mahesh Nair
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Please stop sideshows in Alameda Date: Monday, May 20, 2024 1:06:07 AM
Hello to the honorable members of the city council,
Wanted to follow up on my earlier email about the sideshows. Want to thank the city for pressing charges against one of the sideshow organizers. Your efforts are appreciated. Please consider allowing law enforcement and DAs to have all the tools they need. I saw agenda 2024-4040 and think the use of drones would assist, especially when sideshows have dozens or hundreds of cars.

Appreciate all you do for the city,
Mahesh Nair
650-761-1869
On Mon, May 6, 2024 at 11:35 PM Mahesh Nair <[email protected] > wrote:

Hello Alameda City leaders,
I am writing to you today to please empower our local police department with all the tools they need to stop and arrest those who organize, engage, or participate in the sideshows that have happened in Alameda.

1.) Please use tools like drones to identify the vehicles, drivers, and crowd involved

2.) Impound these cars.

3.) Add extra citations for other obvious illegal modifications on the cars. In short, make it extremely expensive to get the cars back and let the organizers know they are not welcome in Alameda.

For me, this is personal. I was driving my 3 year old son from his soccer class at SoFive one day when a pickup truck leaving the sideshow ran a stop sign and almost hit us. I cannot tell you how angry I was. Living in Alameda Point, it is just a matter of time before someone gets hurt. Our local daycare had some property damage, we have Ring videos of cars speeding, and one of my neighbors told me he was threatened by a driver when yelling at him to slow down. People (esp those privileged enough not to live next door to sideshows) will bring up privacy concerns, but the government can put controls and checks for any new technology and the data it stores. Public safety should be the number one concern of the city council.

On top of the safety concerns, this is also a quality of life issue. We did not move and buy a home in Alameda Point to have our weekend afternoons ruined by the sound of screeching tires and loud music. The majority of these Fast and Furious wannabes are not Alameda city residents. They also cause a lot of traffic, as the Webster/Posey tube is backed up. This is not like the antique show. There is no benefit allowing these reckless drivers on our island.

People should be sternly reminded that driving is a privilege, not a right.

Thank you for your consideration and time,
Mahesh Nair
650-761-1869
From: Hilda Poulson
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Sunday, May 19, 2024 8:51:23 PM
To the Alameda city council:

I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, on the May 21st agenda, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Best ,
Hilda Poulson
Sent from my iPhone
From: Teresa Igler
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Sunday, May 19, 2024 4:07:57 PM
Hello,
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

I am looking forward to Tuesday’s city council meeting to discuss this further! Kind regards,
Teresa Igler
From: Jasmine Lua
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Manager Manager; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Sunday, May 19, 2024 3:33:59 PM
Good afternoon,
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions, including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Thank you,
Jasmine Lua
From: Rafael Botello
To: City Clerk; Manager Manager; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen Subject: [EXTERNAL] No on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Sunday, May 19, 2024 2:51:20 PM
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Signed Raf, resident - Alameda county.

From: Teela
To: City Clerk; Manager Manager; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer Subject: [EXTERNAL] NO on Agenda Item 7B
Date: Sunday, May 19, 2024 2:50:32 PM
Hello Alameda City Council,
I am writing to express my opposition to item 7B, which would accept the annual military equipment report and approve police purchase and use of surveillance drones. I do not support acquisition of drones absent very significant restrictions including their use for the criminalization of people at sideshows.

Sincerely,
Teela, resident of Alameda County
From: Micah Panama
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Support for APD’s request for resources to combat sideshows Date: Saturday, May 18, 2024 7:05:17 AM
Dear Members of the Alameda City Council,
I am writing to express my strong support for the Alameda Police Department’s request for additional tools, such as drones, to address the dangerous sideshows occurring at Alameda Point. These events pose a significant risk to the safety and well-being of our community and I’m grateful for APD’s dedication to fighting these crimes.

APD has show their commitment to this issue and as a result, we’ve seen fewer of side shows this year, for which me and my family are grateful. I appreciate their request for more tools and resources, including drones, to continue their efforts to keep Alameda safe.

I urge the City Council to approve APD’s request for drones and other necessary tools to help ensure the safety and security of our city.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Micah Panama
From: Nishant Joshi
To: Lara Weisiger; Jennifer Ott; Yibin Shen; Ashley Zieba Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Item 7B - Drones Date: Friday, May 17, 2024 3:58:23 PM
fyi

Nishant Joshi
Chief of Police
Alameda Police Department
510-337-8300

From: Vic Rollandi <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 17, 2024 3:57 PM
To: Nishant Joshi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Item 7B - Drones

Greetings Chief Joshi and City Council Members:

I am writing to express my strongest support for this measure.

I am a resident of Alameda, and a local business owner. My company office and equipment storage facilities are also here in Alameda.

Any actions which can be implemented to augment the capabilities of our city's vigilant law enforcement resources would be most welcome.

I have also included the Bayport Home Owners Association in copy to encourage the support of their members.

Very truly yours,

From: michael robleswong
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Letter to the Council on APD Drones 5/16/24 Date: Thursday, May 16, 2024 12:52:51 PM
Attachments: MRW APD Drone suppport 2024.pdf
Hi Lara,
Hope all is well. I've attached a letter to the Mayor and Counsel on the above subject, tentatively scheduled to be on the agenda for the 21st.

Thank you.

Michael Robles-Wong
May 16, 2024
Dear Honorable Mayor Ashcraft and Council Members,
I fully support the list of reasons that the City Manager has provided for the use of drones.

While these applications have been characterized as law enforcement in nature, the use of drones for public safety in the beginning, middle and aftermath of a natural disaster is in a category of its own.

When I brieﬂy spoke to you at the May 7th Council meeting, I was describing what I learned as a ﬁrst responder wearing a Berkeley uniform three decades ago in the Berkeley-Oakland Hills Fire and the Loma Prieta Earthquake.

Rescuing and evacuating hundreds in whole neighborhoods is both chaotic and a little terrifying. Earthquakes, wildﬁres and ﬂooding give little warning. We all recognize the immediate danger that we are in when the ground convulses powerfully, or when there is a strong smell of smoke in hot winds, or when river-like ﬂowing water surges through your neighborhood streets. Power outages, loss of cell reception, and darkness, compound getting accurate information or even being able to call for help.

It takes a little time to ascertain how big the disaster is, and if a call for mutual aid is needed.

Even then, our nearest cities were themselves calling for mutual aid for the Fire and the Earthquake. As police oﬃcers, we were already in the ﬁeld, and reporting back: where walls of ﬂame blocked access; and the streets currently clear of traﬃc jams, debris, and downed wires; so that responding ﬁre, ambulance, PG&E crews and transit buses would not get trapped in the rapidly increasing chaos. Supervisors had to make agonizing choices; where to send the few ﬁrst responders knowing not everyone may be rescued in time. We went door-to-door evacuating neighbors.

And human nature notwithstanding, some people ﬂagged us down to help them rescue a trapped neighbor, while still others ignored the clear danger and headed past us into destroyed neighborhoods on a mission to ﬁnd and rescue relatives and pets.

If we had had two or three drones with speakers back then, available in Police Sergeant vehicles, these ﬂying “eyes, ears and speakers” could have been strategically launched immediately, and more timely critical information could have been used to coordinate ﬁrst responders as well as to “speak” to residents and inform them of the immediate danger and routes of evacuation.

A logical question you may be asking is if the Police Department should have these drones for this public safety oﬃcer function rather than the Fire Department, which also supervises the CERT teams? I think the Police Department is in the best position, simply because in these type disasters, the number of lives saved relies on how fast the disaster is sized up and rescue and evacuation plans are communicated to the public in real time. The police are already spread out in the ﬁeld and should be able to deploy drones in a matter of minutes, and most importantly, continue to deploy these throughout any quickly developing disaster. And, you’ll need more than four of these drones.

Sincerely,
Michael Robles-Wong, Bayfarm Resident

From: Savanna Cheer
To: Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft Cc: Manager Manager; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-B, Tues 5/21/24
Date: Thursday, May 16, 2024 12:13:49 PM
Hello,
I'm writing to urge Council to reject APD's request for implementation of an Uncrewed Aerial System (UAS) Operations Policy and the purchase of two drones. Surveillance technology like drones are part of an array of policing tactics that contribute to over-policed communities, increased militarization, and a feeling of mistrust of law enforcement by residents. Beyond the specific, local issues related to trust and oversight of this city's police department, there are wider implications to consider with a UAS policy and drone usage.

First and foremost is privacy. Last year the ACLU published an in-depth report on law
enforcement use of drones, and notably, APD's policy ordinance actually references following some ACLU suggestions (I couldn't find many connections myself). They outline some very real and fundamental worries about how quickly deployment of drone programs is happening around the country. A major concern is that use of drone technology is outpacing actual analysis or regulation raising some potential longer term privacy concerns. The laws simply haven't caught up to the tech. Alameda should not jump on a potentially legally disastrous bandwagon just because there's some extra dollars in the police budget or they are asking for new toys. There's a time and a place for innovation, but Alameda residents' first amendment rights are not it.

You, City Council, and city staff, speak frequently about the utility of data-driven/proven solutions and best practices to municipal problems. It makes sense to have proof something "works" before trying it, right? If that is important to you, shouldn't you apply that approach to utilizing a new technology as well? Law enforcement drone programs simply do not have enough data behind them to prove their usefulness to a community. APD's proposed policy on situations to use these drones is exceedingly wide-ranged and seems to include almost any situation. It begs the question, do they even know why they need this? You have all certainly scrutinized and been judicious with climate policies, solutions to homelessness, and public space naming - why should this be any different?
Last, what kind of city do we want to live in? On Tuesday you will likely be presented with a series of hypothetical situations from APD about why drones would be a great idea for our community. I would ask that you zoom out a little and think about the door a drone program would open for our community. Do we want to live in a city that prioritizes surveillance and eye-in-the-sky policing? Or would we rather live in a city that prioritizes meeting human needs and building and growing meaningful, healthy programs that enhance peoples' everyday lives? Also, shouldn't we be considering who we are giving public dollars to? Axon Enterprises, the company APD got the quote from, recently acquired a company called Dedrone. Ironically, this company does aerial defense against... drones! This is setting up some kind of war in the sky between flying robots where Axon and/or police departments decide who has a "good" or a "bad" drone. Beyond being really unsettling to think about, it makes no sense for a city of less than 100,000 people to be giving money to a company engaged in these endeavors. Additionally, last year Reuters published an investigation into the
company practices and culture at Axon, and it's truly disturbing. I wonder if doing business with Axon violates some sort of ethical standard in place for vendors? I definitely do not want my tax dollars to be given to this company any more than they already are, and neither should you!
Please be critical thinkers and put up some backstops to harmful police spending by saying no to police drones in Alameda.

Thanks,
Savanna Cheer
From: Shrey Hatle
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Urgent: Addressing Sideshows and Public Safety Concerns Date: Thursday, May 9, 2024 11:56:40 AM
Hello City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to empower our local police department with the necessary tools to effectively address the recurring issue of sideshows in our city. As you prepare to discuss this matter in your upcoming meeting, I wanted to share my concerns and suggestions.

Firstly, I strongly support the use of drones to identify and track the vehicles, drivers, and crowds involved in these illegal events. This technology can provide valuable evidence and help law enforcement take swift action.

Secondly, I recommend impounding the vehicles involved in sideshows and imposing additional citations for any obvious illegal modifications. This would make it clear that such behavior will not be tolerated in our city and would come with significant consequences.

As a concerned citizen, I am deeply troubled by the safety risks and quality of life issues these sideshows pose. The noise, traffic, and reckless driving put our residents and visitors at risk, and it is only a matter of time before someone gets hurt. Moreover, these events are often orchestrated by outsiders who do not respect our community or its laws.

Lastly, they also leave nasty tire marks on new roads making affecting the beauty of Alameda.

While some may raise privacy concerns, I believe that with proper controls and checks in place, the use of drones and other technologies can be balanced with individual rights.

Public safety must be our top priority.

I urge you to take decisive action to address this issue and ensure that our city remains a safe and enjoyable place for all.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Shrey Hatle
806-407-0336
Resident of Alameda
From: Savio D"Souza
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Meeting on May 7, 2024 Item # 7D Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 6:13:59 PM
Honorable Mayor, Members of the City Council & City Manager, I’m writing in support of the use of drones to curb sideshows and specifically, critical incident response and enforcement. As an island, it’s important to provide law enforcement with the tools necessary to respond to situations when it’s not practical for a vehicle to approach in a timely manner. As an operator of a Marina, we believe the use of drones would be advantageous in ensuring the safety and security of our island community.

Sincerely,
Savio D’Souza
From: Carol Gottstein
To: Erin Smith; City Clerk; Jennifer Ott
Cc: Trish Spencer; Tracy Jensen; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft Subject: [EXTERNAL] May 7, 2024 Regular Agenda Item 7-D: Sideshow Prevention measures Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 2:38:18 PM
RE: Temporary Black Asphalt Curbs.

I am pleased the City is developing a plan to discourage unpermitted sideshows at Alameda Point. However, this item reminded me of a hazard. I had a dental patient [Gladys, RIP] long ago who had to interrupt her dental treatment because, in a fast- food parking lot, she tripped over a black asphalt curb, breaking her arm and sustaining numerous bloody abrasions. She was around age 60 and had diabetes, so her injuries took months to heal. Not unexpectedly, she got a lawyer and sued the fast-food place for damages. I don't know how her case eventually turned out.

Now whenever I see these black-on-black obstacles, I think of her and wonder why they are still used anywhere. People can only avoid an obstacle they can see and know is there.. She did not see one of these black asphalt curbs because it was the same color as the surface she was walking on. Moreover, as we age, our vision, especially peripheral vision, becomes less accurate and chronic diseases like diabetes only exacerbate declining visual acuity. An older pedestrian wearing glasses, perhaps using a cane or not, is at greatest risk from the presence of unexpected obstacles out of their field of vision. Trying to step over them is also a challenge to one's legs and balance.

At the same time, I am reviewing the new draft City ADA Transition Plan which purports to address issues of street safety and access for persons such as I've described. Installing raised black asphalt on top of flat black asphalt seems to be working at cross purposes to the goals of this new document. It creates a new hazard with unforeseen consequences.

Since these curbs are described as "temporary", why not use the temporary pale grey concrete ones, or better, the yellow-painted ones? I am no expert in Public Works, but I have seen many such examples all over the place during my lifetime. I hope cost is not the determining factor at work here. Increased visibility for the sake of safety is certainly worth paying for. Please consider it!
Thank you,
Carol Gottstein
Grand Street resident
Alameda, CA 94501
From: Micah Panama
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please address sideshows and dangerous driving in Alameda Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 2:20:17 PM
Dear Alameda City Council Members,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my deep concern regarding the ongoing issue of sideshows and dangerous driving in our community. As a resident of Alameda, I have observed an alarming increase in reckless driving behaviors, particularly during weekends at Alameda Point.

Sideshows not only pose a significant threat to public safety but also contribute to noise disturbances and property damage. These events create an environment of fear and anxiety among residents and undermine the quality of life in our neighborhoods.

I urge the City Council to take immediate action to address this pressing issue. Here are some suggestions that I believe could help mitigate the problem:

Increased Law Enforcement Presence: Deploy additional police patrols in areas known for sideshows and reckless driving to deter such activities and enforce traffic laws more effectively.

Enhanced Coordination with Law Enforcement Agencies: Collaborate with neighboring law enforcement agencies to implement joint operations targeting sideshows and dangerous driving behavior across jurisdictional boundaries.

Strengthening Traffic Regulations: Review and update existing ordinances related to street racing, sideshows, and reckless driving to ensure they are comprehensive and enforceable.

Harsher prosecution for sideshow participants: Make it clear that participating in sideshows in Alameda will lead to prosecution to the fullest intent of the law.

It is imperative that we take decisive action to address this issue before it escalates further and leads to serious injuries or fatalities. As elected representatives, I trust that you share my commitment to ensuring the safety and well-being of all residents in Alameda.

I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to seeing meaningful steps taken to address sideshows and dangerous driving in our community.

Thank you for your leadership and dedication to serving the people of Alameda.

Sincerely,
Micah Panama
From: Tracy Jensen
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Another comment for 7-D
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 2:13:48 PM
Good Afternoon,
I’m writing to the City Counsel to express my support for the use of drones and any other necessary equipment for our police department. I believe the use of these drones will help our officers to protect our community while maintaining a safe environment for our police force as well. Our department is understaffed and while the city is trying to increase the number of officers on our force it’s still far below what it should be.

There is a huge increase in the amount of crime we are seeing in Alameda. I have personally experienced a number of crimes to my residence and cars.

Please provide our police department with the equipment they need to better patrol our community for not only our safety but theirs.

Thank you,
Karin Fox
Eastshore Drive, Alameda
Tracy Jensen
Alameda City Councilmember
voice/text: 510-912-5556
From: Natasha DeCourcy
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Tonight"s meeting
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 12:30:18 PM
Greetings,
I cannot be at tonight's meeting. However, I wanted the council to know that I am writing in support of the request of the Alameda PD to have drones or other resources to deal with crime in Alameda. We have had two cars stolen from in front of our home in the last 12 months.

There is a huge increase in crime here and I no longer feel safe by myself, especially any time after dark. It feels really scary here all of a sudden and we have many kids and we let them walk around town because they are teens but I worry they will be confronted by someone engaged in a crime and I am afraid that anyone could be attacked, day or night.

We need more of a police presence and we need other solutions.

Thank you, Natasha DeCourcy
(415) 518-8480
From: Diana Gibson Pace
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comment on agenda item for this evening’s City Council meeting Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 10:51:39 AM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Council Members,
I am unable to attend the meeting tonight because of a work commitment, and wanted to offer my opinion about the agenda item regarding Alameda Police.

I am writing in strong support to the request of the Alameda Police Department to have drones and other tools and resources to combat crime and lawlessness in Alameda. I have lived here for 23 years and am seeing a sharp increase in crime, including crime that has affected me and my family personally.

As a single, working parent, I count on my city and my police force to keep us safe, and we no longer feel safe. We need more police, more, and more efficient, surveillance tools and more response to the community. There is truly a feeling of lawlessness, and we need to be able to deploy technology (like drones) to supplement our understaffed police force. The drones are a humane and safe way to reduce crime. I am also in favor of fully staffing the police force.

Thank you,
Diana G. Gibson Pace
Sent from my iPad
From: RUSSELL GIUNTINI
To: City Clerk; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] In support of Agenda item 7-D
Date: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 9:51:50 AM

Honorable Mayor Ashcraft and Council members,
I am writing in support of agenda item 7-D for the purchase and use of drones in order to safely police unpermitted side Side Show events that all too often result in property damage and serious bodily injury to participants as well as observers. As we all know these events are difficult to police at best, given the large number of participants involved such that traditional policing strategies often times put our officers in harms way. Drone technology offers an opportunity to identify the Side Show participants while minimizing the likelihood of a confrontation between the police and the participants. The information obtained will allow for the successful prosecution of the cases generated by the Side Show activity and deter future unpermitted Side Shows.

Moreover, drone technology has a whole host of other critical incident benefits including assisting in the apprehension of barricaded or fleeing suspects as well as being an aid to monitor natural disasters so first responders can be strategically directed as needed.

In short, we have to be smart about public safety and that means not turning a blind eye to the use of minimally invasive technologies that make us safer and better prepared for natural disasters. Drone technology meets that mandate.

Russ Giuntini
From: Mahesh Nair
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: Nishant Joshi
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please stop sideshows in Alameda
Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 11:36:17 PM
Hello Alameda City leaders,
I am writing to you today to please empower our local police department with all the tools they need to stop and arrest those who organize, engage, or participate in the sideshows that have happened in Alameda.

1.) Please use tools like drones to identify the vehicles, drivers, and crowd involved

2.) Impound these cars.

3.) Add extra citations for other obvious illegal modifications on the cars. In short, make it extremely expensive to get the cars back and let the organizers know they are not welcome in Alameda.

People (esp those privileged enough not to live next door to sideshows) will bring up privacy concerns, but the government can put controls and checks for any new technology and the data it stores. Public safety should be the number one concern of the city council.

Thank you for your consideration and time,
Mahesh Nair
650-761-1869
From: Tracy Jensen
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: I would like to submit my support for APD to have drones Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 9:42:07 PM
Hi Lara,
Please see the letter below with a request from sender that the comments be included in the agenda packet.

Thanks ~ Tracy
From: JON HAMILTON <[email protected]>
Date: May 6, 2024 at 7:45:37 PM PDT
To: Tracy Jensen
Cc: Michael Robles Wong
Subject: I would like to submit my support for APD to have drones
Tracy:

I have spoken to Michael Robles-Wong about the idea of having a couple of drones that can be owned and operated by the Alameda Police Department for monitoring situations of large crowds, difficult situations, or dangerous standoffs. I fully support the purchase and use of the drones and expect that there will be usage regulations developed which are entirely reasonable.

Considering the cost of an event gone wrong lawsuit - having knowledge and camera footage may go a long way towards both minimizing a bad outcome due to lack of situational awareness. In addition, possibly minimizing any future losses due to an unjust lawsuit against police.

Please add this email/citizen comment to those presented at the May 7th Alameda City council meeting.

Thank you,
Jon Hamilton
Bay Farm
From: Nishant Joshi
To: Jennifer Ott; Lara Weisiger; Yibin Shen
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Statement in support for APD"s use of drones for fighting side shows Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 7:01:14 PM
Nishant Joshi
Chief of Police
Alameda Police Department
510-337-8300
Begin forwarded message:

From: abhishek jain <[email protected]>
Date: May 6, 2024 at 6:50:23 PM PDT
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>, Yibin Shen <[email protected]>, Trish Spencer <[email protected]> Cc: Nishant Joshi <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Statement in support for APD's use of drones for fighting side shows
Hello Mayor Marilyn and members of the city council.

As you might be aware because of my previous emails, I live on the West end of the island, on 5th street, in Alameda. We often take the ferry into the city and have started noticing a worrying trend of tire marks, fallen lamp posts, destroyed public property, etc near the terminal. Most of these can be attributed to the regular sideshows that happen near the base. Generally, people participating in these side shows often run red lights and speed through narrow streets, making the roads dangerous for vehicle occupants and pedestrians alike. Sometimes, these sideshows generally happen at night, vehicles that participate in these sideshows go through quiet neighborhoods on the way to the naval base, making a lot of noise and waking up people in these neighborhoods. Lastly, similar events in Oakland often turn violent and I would not be surprised if that happens at some point on the island as well.

Hence I write this email to show my full support for Police chief Joshi’s and APD’s request to use drones and any other resources that they might need, to help reduce this illegal activity and make Alameda an even better place to live. Also, I will try my level best to make it to the city’s council meeting to support measure 7D, if I remember correctly, that relates to this particular request from APD.

Please let me know if I can be of any help
Thank you for being amazing APD and police chief Joshi. My family could not have asked for a better police force.

Thanks and regards,
Abhishek Jain
From: Burny
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Tracy Jensen; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Cc: City Clerk; Manager Manager
Subject: [EXTERNAL] APD/Purchase of Drones
Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 6:50:58 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members:

I write this letter to support the purchase and ultimate use of a drone(s) to enhance the capabilities of our Police Department in the many situations that call for their service. To me, the purchase of these drones is simply another tool which can be used to serve and protect the citizens of our community. Technology can be a good thing and in this case I truly believe it is.

The proposed general order governing the use of the drone appears to be tight and strict in authorizing implementation of its use. The chief of police who is known for his professionalism as well as his attention to detail has in my opinion authored a complete and competent manual for the drone’s use.

We are fortunate to have a professionally run police department. I would request that we give the men and women of the APD the tools to effectively provide what they do on a daily basis.

Burny Matthews
Retired Alameda Chief of Police
From: Nishant Joshi
To: Jennifer Ott; Lara Weisiger; Yibin Shen
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] Council Meeting May 7, 2024 Agenda 7-D 2024-3984 Attachment Exhibit 3: Drone Specifications
Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 6:33:36 PM
Nishant Joshi
Chief of Police
Alameda Police Department
510-337-8300
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 6, 2024 6:25 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]> Cc: Tony Daysog <[email protected]>; Tracy Jensen <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Council Meeting May 7, 2024 Agenda 7-D 2024-3984 Attachment Exhibit 3: Drone Specifications
To Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Daysog, Council Members Jensen, Herrera-Spencer and Vella.

My name is Frank I Alliger and I reside at 3038 Thompson Avenue and have lived on the island since 1977. I am also retired from the Oakland Police Department after 32 years of service.

As the Manager of the Identification Division, one of the activities I created and directed was the Mobile Field Force Video Teams deployed for crowd control and special operations on holidays involving sideshows in Oakland. The use of video was essential in providing documentation, gathering evidence and real time information of activities both at crowd level and from elevated locations. The advent of the deployment of drones to accomplish these tasks is a game changer. The information available from use of drones enables the operator to observe and document from the air directly to the command post. It not only provides comprehensive information in evidence gathering, it also provides the scene commander with real time information of crowd size, vehicles involved. The drone also offers mobility not afforded by teams on the ground. Drones in addition to video capture and real time information also have the capacity for auxiliary applications using thermal imaging, deployment of light payloads as well as being utilized for night time operations.

One of the added benefits of acquiring drones for the department’s use is increased officer safety, not having to place personnel in hazardous situations, whether during crowd control, sideshows or catastrophic event like a fire or water situation. Drones provide law enforcement with many solutions usually only accomplished by helicopter, at a substantial savings. They are a necessary tool in contemporary law enforcement and would greatly assist our police department personnel with the tools needed to ensure improved safety of our community.

I would like to endorse the acquisition and deployment of drones by our police department.

Respectfully,
fIA
Frank I Alliger
Alameda, CA
From: Madlen
To: CityCouncil-List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Council meeting May 7, agenda item 7-D Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 3:41:07 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Sideshows support letter - Google Docs.pdf
Honorable Mayor and councilmembers,
Please see the attached letter sharing our support for the recommendations.

I appreciate your consideration.

Madlen Saddik
President & CEO
o:510.522.0414 | m:650.954.0848
w: alamedachamber.com
e: [email protected]
Click here to find me on LinkedIn
Click Here to Schedule a Meeting With Me
"The best way to find yourself is to lose yourself in the service of others.”

May 6, 2024
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members;
The scourge of sideshows in Alameda has reached a crical juncture, disrupng the lives of residents, jeopardizing local businesses, and tarnishing the experience of our valued visitors. To combat this menace eﬀecvely, we must adopt a comprehensive approach that leaves no stone unturned.

As such, it is necessary to clarify the city’s oﬃcial approach involving all departments of the city, especially public works, with business partners supporng physical changes and improvements to the streets to ensure the impact on businesses.

The Alameda Chamber advocates using drones to prevent and enforce unpermied sideshow and car show events at Alameda Point, which is the purpose of using drones for crical incident response and enforcement purposes.

Under the leadership of Chief Joshi, we have full conﬁdence in the Alameda Police Department's ability to ulize drones safely and responsibly for law enforcement purposes. This technological advancement aligns with our shared goal of ensuring the safety and well-being of our community.

Let us stand united in our resolve to combat sideshows and uphold the sancty of our city. The me for acon is now, and together, we can reclaim our streets and preserve the vibrant essence of Alameda for generaons to come.

We appreciate your consideraon.

Gratefully ,
Madlen Saddik
Madlen Saddik
CEO/President
Alameda Chamber & Economic Alliance

From: Trish Spencer
To: City Clerk; Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] UAV/Drone Policy (Item 7-D, Exhibit 4) Date: Monday, May 6, 2024 10:17:17 AM
Attachments: Alameda UAV 5-5-24.pdf
From: Brian Hofer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 5, 2024 4:44:47 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Nishant Joshi <[email protected]>
Cc: Sameena Usman <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] UAV/Drone Policy (Item 7-D, Exhibit 4) Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Please see our attached letter regarding a proposal by Alameda PD to use UAV.

Brian Hofer
Executive Director
----------------------------------------------
Cell: (510) 303-2871
Twitter personal: @b_haddy
Twitter org: @SecureJustice
Mastodon org: @[email protected]
Tik Tok org: @secure.justice
San Francisco Bay Area, CA
secure-justice.org

Hofer bio
Donate to Secure Justice
*Disclaimer: This email may contain confidential and privileged material, including attachments, for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) named above. Please do not review, use, copy, forward, or in any way distribute or disclose the contents of this e-mail including any attachments unless you are the intended recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or authorized to receive this message for the recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and delete all copies of this message.

May 5, 2024 VIA EMAIL ONLY Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft ([email protected]) Vice Mayor Tony Daysog ([email protected]) Tracy Jensen ([email protected]) Malia Vella ([email protected]) Trisha Herrera Spencer ([email protected]) Alameda City Council Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Re: UAV/Drone Use Policy (Item 7-D, Exhibit 4) Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Councilmembers: I write to comment on Item 7-D, pertaining to Alameda’s potential use of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones (“UAV”). Although Secure Justice as an entity does not endorse expanded use of surveillance technology, we routinely review 100s of draft use policies for surveillance technology proposed by municipalities across the country, to encourage cities like Alameda to enact appropriate civil liberties and privacy protecting guardrails to minimize the potential invasiveness and harm that can arise from the use of such technology, and/or the data it collects. We believe that Oakland’s UAV policy is the gold standard at present. We can comfortably state that the proposed UAV policy crafted by your police department closely tracks Oakland’s, which has heavily influenced some of your neighbors like Hayward and the Alameda County Sheriff, and to our knowledge, an additional ten jurisdictions in other parts of California. Should you enact this policy, Alameda will be among the best in class as to the rules governing UAV use. Having reviewed Oakland’s UAV annual reports the past few years, we believe that UAV may be the best de-escalation tool in municipal law enforcement use today. In Oakland, the use of controversial (and lawsuit heavy) K9’s has evaporated. Likewise, officer-involved-shootings, injury to hostages, and suicide-by-cop have all but disappeared as Oakland began relying more on UAVs in high-risk searches and active shooter or hostage situations.

Alameda City Council Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) May 5, 2022 We appreciate that Chief Joshi proactively reached out to Secure Justice to review his proposed draft, understanding that we possess the necessary expertise and awareness of best practices to evaluate the proposed UAV policy. Although Oakland’s policy is more privacy aggressive when it comes to retention of data (5 days, vs. 30), most other jurisdictions that were influenced by Oakland also landed on 30 days for retention of data, unless such data has been tagged as evidence which would then be governed by evidentiary rules. The remainder of Chief Joshi’s proposed policy mirrors Oakland’s with specific authorized uses that have a public safety utility and do not target First Amendment protected activities, a clear chain of command for approval of use, and an express prohibition on weaponization and facial recognition. We are comfortable that if use adheres strictly to the policy, civil liberties and privacy will be adequately safeguarded. As AB 481 requires a publicly available annual report for UAV use, which must provide efficacy metrics and audits among other information, the City Council and general public will be able to ascertain whether the UAV is being used responsibly and for the betterment of Alamedans. We appreciate the opportunity to review your proposed policy. Sincerely, Brian Hofer Executive Director (510) 303-2871 [email protected] https://secure-justice.org/ San Francisco Bay Area, CA cc Chief Joshi ([email protected])

From: Cyndy Johnsen
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: City Clerk; [email protected]; Jennifer Ott Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments for Item 7-D
Date: Saturday, May 4, 2024 1:40:22 PM
Attachments: 5_7_2024 CC 7D Comments_Sideshows.pdf
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Members of the City Council, Please see our comments regarding Item 7-D (Sideshows), attached.

Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Bike Walk Alameda
Board of Directors
Denyse Trepanier
President
Brian Fowler
Treasurer
Tim Beloney
Secretary
Cyndy Johnsen
Board Member
Maria Piper
Board Member
Lucy Gigli
Founder, non-voting
May 4, 2024
RE: Item 7-D: Sideshows
Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Members of the City Council, We support the preventative measures that are being implemented to discourage sideshows at Alameda Point. They will go a long way towards improving community safety, quality of life, and the environment, while also reducing service and ﬁscal impacts related to our City’s response efforts.

We do not support pursuing drones at this time, however, because we’re concerned doing so will be contentious, time-consuming, and distract from unmet trafﬁc enforcement needs throughout Alameda. We’re experiencing an epidemic of dangerous driving behaviors on our streets, and note that trafﬁc violation citations are still at historic lows — a fraction of what they were for years before the pandemic . Our preference is for APD to focus on enforcing 1 trafﬁc safety laws throughout Alameda instead of expending resources on a drone program. The tools described in the ﬁrst part of this Item may well be sufﬁcient in preventing sideshows at Alameda Point.

We also agree with this post from the Morning Bun that the urgency, resourcing, and ‘hard’ design treatments being deployed to prevent sideshows at the Point should be applied to dangerous streets throughout Alameda.

While it’s good to ﬁnally see the improvements for the intersection at Lincoln and Walnut on the consent calendar , Fred Zehnder was killed by a driver at this intersection almost three years ago . It should not take this long. We urge you to keep this in mind during the mid-year budget cycle discussions when you consider additional staff resourcing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Bike Walk Alameda
1 https://www.alamedaca.gov/ﬁles/assets/public/v/1/ﬁnance/alameda-acfr-fy20-city-fs-reduced-size.pdf (page 202), and https://alamedaca.opengov.com/data/#/29521/query=D31EC2392F05A423F60D4F776857DF13&embed=n

From: michael robleswong
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Open letter to the Mayor and City Council: APD Drones Date: Wednesday, May 1, 2024 12:34:06 PM
Attachments: MRW APD drone request 2024.pdf
Hi Laura,
Attached is a letter addressing the Council consideration on May 7th for the request to purchase drones. Thank you,
Michael Robles-Wong
May 1, 2024
Dear Honorables Mayor Ashcraft and CouncilMembers,
This is to register my support of a proposal to permit the Police Department to purchase one or more drones ostensibly to record “side shows” that brazenly have taken a foothold mostly at Alameda Point. While such activity seems more entertainment than violent acts against our community, I feel these repeated and growing public acts of ﬂaunting lawlessness, invite more serious criminal acts by others into our town when there does not seem to be any APD repercussion for the participants. And, we have seen reports of injuries and property damage associated with these shows.

My understanding is that recordings can be used as an investigative tool to track down and prosecute the perpetrators. More importantly, the presence of this hi-tech equipment is a soft way to deter future shows, as compared to either physically corralling and arresting the participants, or equally dangerous to our personnel, sending in undercover oﬃcers to ﬁlm the ongoings.

Other than ﬁlming “side shows” from above, I can see the use of such equipment in other fairly limited circumstances involving life and limb:

Monitoring of a natural disaster such as a ﬂood, ﬁre or earthquake where such an immediate vantage point could be used to direct ﬁrst responders to help evacuate or provide emergency assistance in a wide area that cannot be seen by a few personnel on the ground.

Monitoring of a large gathering of people where there may be known security concerns, such as at a parade, street fair, demonstration, etc.

Monitoring of nearby bodies of water where reportedly someone in the water may need help.

Surveillance of a building or buildings where there is an armed barricaded subject.

Surveillance of a (law enforcement surrounded) block where there is an ongoing search for an armed felon.

Initiation for the use of this equipment should be limited to these circumstances and approved for use by the watch commander.

Sincerely,
Michael Robles-Wong
Bayfarm Resident
From: Kaitlin Alcontin
To: CityCouncil-List
Cc: Sarah Henry; Manager Manager
Subject: [EXTERNAL] APD Annual Military Equipment Report Date: Tuesday, April 30, 2024 9:19:34 PM
Dear Alameda City Councilmembers and City Manager's Office, I am an Alameda resident writing to express my opposition to the Alameda Police Department's intent to obtain additional military equipment including police drones and a mobile command vehicle as stated in its Annual Military Equipment Report. Pursuant to AB 481, the City Council should not approve the use of more military equipment here, especially drones.

I am sending this email after exiting the West End Library, which hosted the community meeting on this topic. I did not enter the library intending to attend the meeting but happened to be present studying when I heard an APD officer characterize such equipment as necessary to combat robbery and became concerned. I did not feel safe speaking up in the library because I had seen staff threaten to expel a patron for calmly objecting to another's use of homophobic slurs earlier today and was accordingly unsure of what constituted disrupting the peace. Instead, I will share my thoughts here, and encourage the City to hold further meetings between now and May 21st in a more formalized setting or session accessible via Zoom.

The purpose of AB 481, as stated in Section 1A, is to address the adverse impacts of police departments acquiring military equipment, including harms to physical and psychological well-being which are experienced most acutely in low-income Black and Brown communities.

As a low-income Alamedan of color who has been watching militarized police forces mobilize against peaceful college demonstrations nationwide for the past week, I can assure you that keeping additional military equipment away from APD is paramount to the psychological well-being of POC in Alameda.

I've been an Alamedan for 17 years, a west-side resident for 13 of those. I don't go near South Shore anymore since APD killed Mario Gonzales three years ago. If APD can't handle an unarmed 26-year-old without applying lethal force that gives rise to involuntary manslaughter charges, then they should not be entrusted with more military equipment. Alameda is meant to be a place where "everyone belongs" but I've had Black and Brown peers telling me that they feel unsafe on Park Street for over a decade now, and, after today, I don't even know if I'll be going to the library anymore. Further military equipment such as drones will do nothing to counter the issue of law enforcement being seen as an "occupying force" which AB 481 aims to address.

Cal. Gov. Code 7071(d)(1) states that a governing body should not give approval to a military equipment use policy under AB 481 unless "the military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative" and it will "safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties." APD has not met its burden to show that military equipment is the only reasonable method of achieving officer and civilian safety. Furthermore, drone surveillance comes with a slew of civil rights and civil liberties concerns.

Thank you for your time.

Best,
--
Kaitlin Alcontin

Alameda City CouncilJune 4, 2024

Alameda City Council
June 4, 2024