Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL 12 FEBRUARY 3, 2026 <br />SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Councilmember Hernandez moved to remand Item No. <br />15 to the Police Oversight Commission, seconded by Councilmember Vazquez. <br /> <br />MINUTES: Chief Rodriguez clarified that while flight times vary by service call, <br />drones do not record in transit to the call of service, and the footage is treated as a <br />public record similar to body-worn cameras. He stated that audit logs will be available <br />to view on a forward-facing website and stated that the use of a drone at the <br />shopping center incident allowed constant aerial monitoring during the 11-hour <br />incident. He also stated that Policy 606 is in place to ensure they are able to exercise <br />their right to protest and that drones do not record when monitoring protests. He <br />confirmed that drones can assist the Fire Department and can only operate beyond <br />city limits to support neighboring jurisdictions when requested. <br /> <br />Councilmember Bacerra asked regarding the next steps for finalizing the draft policy <br />should the item pass and stated that the current version addresses most public <br />concerns. He also noted the drone's potential to target illegal fireworks and facilitate de- <br />escalation, including during peaceful protests. <br /> <br />Chief Rodriguez stated that the department would take input from the Council and <br />will go through an internal department process to finalize the policy. <br /> <br />Mayor Amezcua asked whether the current drone at City events is a city drone that <br />records footage and whether the City is in compliance with California’s military <br />equipment requirement. <br /> <br />City Manager Alvaro Nuñez stated the drone belongs to the Parks, Recreation, and <br />Community Services Department and is used to record and photograph promotional <br />footage at city events. <br /> <br />City Attorney Carvalho clarified the drone footage would comply with all privacy rights <br />protections in the same way body-worn camera footage is processed for release under <br />a Public Records Act request. <br /> <br />Councilmember Hernandez stated that although the Police Department is now in <br />compliance with the California military equipment requirement it was due to the <br />public’s overwhelming request during a council meeting after the protest on June 9, <br />2025. <br /> <br />Chief Rodriguez clarified that action to bring the department into compliance with the <br />California military equipment requirement was put in motion before the protest in June. <br /> <br />Councilmember Phan spoke regarding the policy’s issue of privacy, transparency, and <br />accountability. She asked for clarification regarding the requirement for the drone operator <br />to be in “good standing,” whether the drone footage will be handled and managed similar <br />to the footage captured by the body-worn cameras which is from the same manufacturer, <br />whether probable cause limitations apply to the drones, whether the use of visual <br />enhancement technology limitations is consistent with other types of police searches, and <br />whether proactive policing and the drone being equipped with employing lethal force is