From:Cynthia Replogle
To:City Council
Subject:Item 12.B: Annual Military Equipment Report Per California Assembly Bill 481 Date:Sunday, May 3, 2026 3:29:08 PM
External Email
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers:
The Council should exercise its statutory authority to disapprove renewal of militaryequipment that a 23-officer department serving 8,000 residents cannot justify as necessaryand has not used operationally.
I want to thank the City for responding substantively to the concerns raised in my April 4email. The item was pulled from the prior meeting agenda, the report was posted, acommunity engagement meeting was offered (although seemingly not well publicized), andthe matter now appears as a regular agenda item open to public comment. Thatresponsiveness reflects well on the City and is appreciated. The concerns I raise below areintended in the same spirit — to help the Council fulfill its oversight role under AB481 asfully and transparently as the law requires and the community deserves. Transparency andgenuine community engagement are not favors extended to residents — they are thebaseline obligations of democratic governance.
This is the first year the police department has posted an annual report to its website orheld a community engagement meeting — obligations that have existed since theordinance was adopted in April 2022. The Council is being asked to treat this as routineannual renewal. It is not. The department has been out of compliance with AB481'stransparency requirements for four years, and only came into partial compliance after Iraised these issues in writing. That history is relevant context for the oversight the Councilshould exercise today.
Substantive Concerns
The 2025 Annual Military Equipment Report reveals an inventory that warrants seriousscrutiny from the Council on behalf of the community it represents.
Pismo Beach is a coastal city of around 8,000 residents served by 23 sworn officers. Itsmission statement says “We practice a unique form of ‘tourism-oriented policing’, whichenhances our community’s reputation as a fun, family-oriented vacation destination enjoyedin a safe and peaceful environment.” Yet the police department's military equipmentinventory includes two MP5 submachine guns, 27 other rifles, eight 40mm less-lethallaunchers of the type used to fire impact projectiles into crowds of people, nine flashbanggrenades (a.k.a. distration devices), twenty tear gas grenades, and two pepper balllaunchers. In 2025, those munitions had zero operational deployments.
I would also invite the Council to consider whether retaining a $378,000 mobile commandvehicle remains the best use of City resources. The report reflects that the commandvehicle's deployments have been primarily to community events. Its single substantive lawenforcement deployment was to a jurisdiction about an hour away, which is a use case thatregional mutual aid from the Sheriff's Office or a neighboring agency could likely satisfy. Fora tourist-oriented community, a more visible and welcoming presence — officers at asimple staffed table or canopy, without heavy tactical equipment — would likely better serveoccasions like an Easter egg hunt.
The annual report also fails to satisfy § 7072's cost reporting requirements. The statuterequires disclosure of total annual costs for each equipment type, explicitly including
training costs. The report characterizes training costs as zero on the basis that it wasconducted in-house without overtime. But in-house training by certified instructors consumes officer time, ammunition, and facility resources, none of which are free. Further, the text details annual costs for some equipment — for example, $100 per rifle and $1500 per UAS — that is shown as zero cost in the summary table. The Council cannot meaningfully evaluate the true costs of maintaining this inventory, or weigh it against other community priorities, on the basis of the inconsistent and incomplete cost reporting provided.
The governing body's renewal authority under § 7071(e)(2) is not a rubber stamp. TheCouncil is required to determine whether each equipment type has complied with theapproval standards in § 7071(d):
(1)The governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policypursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
For equipment that has seen zero operational use in a city of this size and crime profile,that determination deserves genuine scrutiny rather than pro forma approval.
Requests
I ask the Council to:
1. Require staff to provide operational justification for all equipment with zero deployments in 2025 prior to approving renewal. Absent a satisfactory justification, renewal of such items should be denied.
2. Direct staff to report on acquisition sources for all inventory items, correct cost reporting,and assess whether any surplus equipment could be disposed of or sold, with proceedsreturned to the general fund for other community priorities.
AB481 was enacted because Californians recognized that police militarization requirespublic oversight. This Council has the authority — and the obligation — to exercise thatoversight meaningfully. I urge you to do so.
Best,
Cynthia Replogle
Pismo Beach resident
Pronouns: she/her/hers
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.