Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApprove for Introduction Ordinance No. 4121 adding Chapter 8DRONES: KNOW BEFORE YOU FLY Item 20. - 8 HB -734- Drones: Know Before You Fly Responses from the Cities Policy- Questions 91-5 Does your agency/dept have a policy for the operation of privately -owned drones? 3.1% 9.4% yes u No W Evaluating 87.5% 3% If there are no policies, why not? Figure 1 Figure 2 The first five survey questions related to the existence of any policy concerning drones. The results show that the vast majority of Orange County cities have not addressed the presence of small drones. The survey indicated 88% of responding Orange County cities do not have a policy or ordinance that addresses the operation of privately -owned recreational drones (Figure 1). Fifty seven percent (57%) of responding cities consider drones a non -issue. Examples of comments received from some cities include: "our council has not given us direction"; "we have not experienced any drone problems"; and "there is little to no issue with our police department." However there are exceptions: Huntington Beach has a municipal code that restricts remote controlled model aircraft, which they are updating to include both private and commercial drones. Dana Point has a municipal code but only in relation to the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas. Thirty one percent (31 %) of responding cities are interested in a policy while stating they are awaiting State or Federal guidelines (Figure 2). The Orange County Fire Authority agrees a drone poses a collision risk to firefighting aircraft and, if spotted, air operations must temporarily cease. In response to whether or not implementing a drone ordinance would have a budgetary effect, half of those responding do not believe that it would have a significant impact. Those concerned about the impact on their budget cite the following reasons: staff and legal resources needed to create and enforce an ordinance, along with the costs to update websites/newsletters, and creating and hosting community educational workshops. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Page 13 HB -747- Item 20. - 21 Drones: Know Before You Fly Experience with Small, Privately Owned Drones- Questions 46-9 Have there been any reported Drone accidents or "near misses" by your agency/Dept? 88 Figure 3 12% ■ Yes W No Have there been any incidents or public complaints involving drones in your jurisdiction? A mob, Figure 4 If a city resident has concerns with a hovering drone, whom should they call? Figure 5 ■ Yes No Four of the survey questions asked about experience with drones and whether there were reported incidents or complaints. Eleven of the respondent cities reported complaints involving small drones (Figure 4), including four respondents who reported accidents or near misses (Figure 3). The FAA now receives more than 100 UAS sightings each month from pilots, citizens, and law enforcement. The Grand Jury survey revealed that Orange County cities received nearly 100 drone -related complaints over a period of one year. The Grand Jury feels it is short-sighted for our county and cities to ignore this emerging concern. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Page 14 Item 20. - 22 HB -748- Drones: Know Before You Fly To illustrate one such complaint, consider that Huntington Beach reported the Air Support Unit of their police department employs a helicopter to assist with daily calls for service. This helicopter has experienced several near misses with drones during routine air patrols and at active crime scenes. Huntington Beach also noted that residents have complained about drones hovering over their bedroom windows. Another beach city also received reports of drones flying over the pier area and recording sunbathers on the beach. On a different occasion, a Go -Pro camera fell from a drone during an event and hit the ground near several people, including children. Consider too, that one city manager reported 37 calls for service involving small drones while another city manager reported 29 complaints. While hosting a large July 4th parade/festival, a city received several complaints of nuisance drones in spite of an event flyer stating "NO DRONES." Most respondents identified a law enforcement agency (police/sheriff) as the source to notify if a resident has a drone concern. Other entities responded with answers as varied as Community Services, Code Enforcement, Public Safety, City Manager, 911, and FAA. The Grand Jury noted the lack of education and consistency in the responses. Members of the public who witness potential incidents have no information about how and where to report. The OCSD Bomb Squad said reporting a drone incident is a "major under -reported event." This failure to report indicates a result of lack of educational information or policy. Educational Outreach to the Small Drone Community- Question 410 Are there agency -sponsored educational programs available for public awareness regarding the safety and danger factors involved with operating a drone? •Yes i No a Evaluating 94% Figure 6 To provide guidance to hobbyists, the FAA has partnered with three of the largest hobby drone manufacturers to create the Know before You Fly website www.knowbeforevoufly.org. This website is heavily promoted by the FAA, hobby drone manufacturers, and responsible hobby 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Page 15 HB -749- Item 20. - 23 Drones: Know Before You Fly drone owners (AMA 1-2). The B4UFLY smartphone application is another educational resource (FAA Releases 1). In addition to educational resources provided by the FAA, two of the cities reported having educational resources available to educate operators of hobbyist drones. Costa Mesa has a Video/TV production CMTV3. Huntington Beach plans to include drone safety information, along with other safety programs, on their Facebook page. These two cities are the exception. The majority of the cities responded to Question #10 on our survey to the effect that there are no city sponsored educational programs available at this time for public awareness regarding the safety and danger of operating a drone. The various explanations included: • "Educational materials are available with an online search" • "We can put an FAA flyer in each mailer that goes out to all residents" • "The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) have excellent educational materials" • "We have a bi-weekly newsletter online, but no drone info on it" • "Our goal is to distribute information from State and Federal sources" • "We could consider a quarterly newsletter" • "The schools should be teaching drone safety" • "We are a very small department" The county and cities have a myriad of untapped, inexpensive options with which to speak to the local residents. Notices delivered to residents via postal or electronic mail should contain information on drone safety. FAA- Model Aircraft flyers should be available at libraries, city buildings, police departments, and schools. County and city websites should address safety issues. Parades, festivals and street fairs should promote drone safety. Additionally, Orange County has nearly 5,000 Homeowners Associations. Most HOAs have a website or newsletter. The Davis -Stirling Common Interest Act suggests each HOA board create a rule to address drone noise, safety and privacy issues. If drones are flown by people outside the association, the HOA would need to go to the city or county to seek a ban. (Davis -Stirling) Know Before You Fly Except for a small smattering of inconsequential incidents, there have been no major problems reported. This is good news, considering that airports and fire/law enforcement departments have the most at stake from drone mishaps. Hobby -recreational drones are the "new -kid on the block." It is no surprise that 94% of our cities have no educational programs available for public awareness regarding the safety and danger factors involved with flying a drone. Most drone operators want to do the right thing but where are the guides, mentors or teachers? This is a new 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Page 16 Item 20. - 24 HB -750- Drones: Know Before You Fly generation challenge. The safety issues that have surfaced world-wide should elevate this concern to top of the "needs -attention" list. Having a drone ordinance on record would be saying that this is what our community standards are. The public needs to know and our first responders need to feel community support. No one should be at risk because somebody wants a video to go viral. FINDINGS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the findings presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled "Drones: Know Before You Fly", the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury has arrived at seven principal findings, as follows: F.I. Recreational drones have greatly increased in number since December 2015 and it is probable their unregulated use will pose significant threats to public safety and privacy in Orange County cities and unincorporated areas. F.2. With the exception of the recent Federal Aviation Administration registration rule, recreational drone owners are largely self -policed, which leads to a wide range of behavior. F.3. Most of the cities and unincorporated areas of the County of Orange do not have a drone ordinance, nor do they have any immediate plans to enact an ordinance in the near future. FA. Most of the cities provide no educational programs for public awareness of the safety issues connected to recreational drones. F.S. Some Orange County cities, despite recognizing potential issues with drones, are awaiting drone -related legislative action or other guidance by the State of California or FAA before enacting local ordinances. F.6. The FAA -required registration of recreational drones provides a useful tool for local enforcement of drone ordinances. F.7. Orange County cities have not established a procedure for reporting drone incidents, which results in under -reporting of drone safety and privacy events. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Page 17 HB -751- Item 20. - 25 Drones: Know Before You Fly RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with California Penal Code Section 933 and Section 933.05, the 2015-2016 Grand Jury requires (or, as noted, requests) responses from each agency affected by the recommendations presented in this section. The responses are to be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Based on its investigation titled "Drones: Know Before You Fly", the 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury makes the following nine recommendations: R.I. Each City Council should direct its City Attorney to provide a report to the city's police department and City Council on existing laws that can be applied to the use of recreational drones in the city's jurisdiction by December 30, 2016. (F.2., F.3., F.5., F.6.) R.2. Each City should adopt a recreational drone ownership and operation ordinance, with regulations similar to those found in Los Angeles City ordinance 4183912, by March 31, 2017, to the extent not preempted or superseded by Federal law or Federal regulations. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.5., F.6.) R.3. Each City should inform its citizens about laws and ordinances that apply to recreational drone operators through print media, city -related web sites, social media sites and/or public forums by March 31, 2017. (F.4., F.6.) RA. Each City should establish and publish on its website a point of contact for drone -related citizen complaints by December 30, 2016. (F.7.) R.5. Each City should post FAA drone ownership and operation educational links on city -related websites, newsletters, and flyers by December 30, 2016. (F.4.) R.6. The Orange County Board of Supervisors should direct County Counsel to provide a report to the Orange County Sheriff -Coroner Department and the Board of Supervisors on existing laws that can be applied to the use of recreational drones in county -governed parks and unincorporated areas by December 30, 2016. (F.2., F.3., F.6.) R.7. The County should adopt a recreational drone ownership and operation ordinance similar to Los Angeles City Ordinance #183912 for the parks and unincorporated areas under its jurisdiction by March 31, 2017, to the extent not preempted or superseded by Federal law or Federal regulations. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.6.) R.8. The County should inform its citizens about laws and ordinances that apply to recreational drone operators through print media, County -related web sites, social media sites and/or public forums by March 31, 2017. (F.4., F.6.) 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Page 18 Item 20. - 26 HB -752- Drones: Know Before You Fly R.9. The County and each City should formally gather data on recreational drone incidents within their jurisdictions and review these data annually and report the results publicly. The first analysis and publication should occur within 1 year of the publication of this report. (F.1., F.2., F.3., F.7.) REQUIRED RESPONSES The California Penal Code Section 933 requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such elected County Official shall comment on the findings and recommendations pertaining to the matters under that elected officials control within 60 days to the Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code Section 933.05, subdivisions (a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each Grand Jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefore. (b) As to each Grand Jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report. 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Page 19 xB -753- Item 20. - 27 Drones: Know Before You Fly (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a finding or recommendation of the Grand Jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agency or department head and the Board of Supervisors shall respond if requested by the Grand Jury, but the response of the Board of Supervisors shall address only those budgetary /or personnel matters over which it has some decision making authority. The response of the elected agency or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. Comments to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court in compliance with Penal Code Section 933.05 are required from: Responses Required: cgs rmrlation F F F F F F F R R R R R R R R R 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 City of Aliso Viejo X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2 City of Anaheim X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 City of Brea X X X X X X X X X X X X X 4 City of Buena Park X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5 City of Costa Mesa X X X X X X X t X X X X X X 6 City of Cypress X X X X X X X X X X X X X 7 City of Dana Point X X X X X X X X X X X X X 8 City of Fountain Valley X X X X X X X X X X X X X 9 City of Fullerton y, X X X X X X X X X X X X X 10 City of Garden Grove X X X X X X X X X X X X X 11 City of Huntington Beach „ X X X X X X X X X X X X X 12 City of Irvine X X X X X X X °; X X X X X X 13 City of La Habra X X X X X X X X X X X X X 14 City of La Palma: X X X X X X X X X X X X X 15 City of Laguna Beach X X X X X X X 77 X X X X X X 16 City of Laguna Hills X X X X X X X X X X X X X 17 City of Laguna Niguel X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18 City of Laguna Woods X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19 City of Lake forest X X X X X X X X X X X X X 20 City of Los Alamitos: X X X X X X X ` X X X X X X 21 City of Mission Viejo X X X X X X X X X X X X X 22 City of Newport Beach X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Page 20 Item 20. - 28 HB -754- Drones: Know Before You Fly F 1 F 2 F 3 F 4 F 5 F 6 F 7 R 1 R 2 R 3 R 4 R 5 R 6 R 7 R 8 R 9 23 City of Orange X X X X X X X X X X X X X 24 City of Placentia ' X X X X X X X X X X X X X 25 City of Rancho Santa Margarita - X X X X X X X X X X X X X 26 City of San Clemente a X X X X X X X X X X X X X 27 City of San Juan Capistrano X X X X X X X X X X X X X 28 City of Santa Ana X X X X X X X X X X X X X 29 City of Seal Beach X X X X X X X X X X X X X 30 City of Stanton X X X X X X X X X X X X X 31 City of Tustin X X X X X X X X X X X X X 32 City of Villa Park X X X X X X X X X X X X X 33 City of Westminster X X X X X X X X X X X X X 34 City of Yorba Linda X X X X X X X X X X X X X 35 OC Board of Supervisors X X X X X X X X 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Page 21 xB -755- Item 20. - 29 Drones: Know Before You Fly 0 DON'T fly an aircraft weighing more than 55 lbs unless it's certified by an aeromodelling community -based organization Appendix F: Model Aircraft Guidelines Hobby / Recreational Flying W hat Can I Do With My Model Aircraft" Having fun means flying safely! Hobby or recreational flying doesn't require FAA approval but you must follow safety guidelines. Any other use requires FAA authorization. I DO fly a model aircraftIUAS at the local model aircraft club DO take lessons and loam to fly safely DO contact the airport or control tower when flying within 5 miles of the airport DO fly a model aircraft for personal enjoyment 2015-2016 Orange County Grand Jury Page 38 Item 20. - 46 NB -772- NNAC More The War Between The Drones States Cities and states want to pass laws and regulations protecting the safety and privacy of their citizens. Congress is considering a bill that would allow the FAA to preempt state and local measures. Which approach is best for the UAS industry? By Patrick C. Miller I April 14, 2016 I've been told by a number of attorneys specializing in UAS law that the battle between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and states and municipalities to regulate the airspace in which drones operate will ultimately be won by the FAA. The debate has been sparked by FAA reauthorization legislation being considered by Congress. The Senate bill contains a provision preempting state and local drone laws. That the federal government prefers a "one size fits all" approach comes as no surprise. A national poll shows that 68 percent of Americans are against the FAA deciding what UAS regulations are best for their communities. That's really not surprising, either, given the public perception of drones —often based on misconceptions. Organizations such as the National League of Cities and Conference of Mayors are against giving the FAA the authority to trump the laws and regulations they deem necessary to assure the safety and privacy of their citizens. A letter the two organizations sent to a U.S. Senate committee said, "Much like automobiles and land use development regulations, local leaders know best how to regulate issues that affect their residents in their own backyards." A statement from a group called Smart Government said, "Including federal preemption language of state and local drone laws in the FAA Reauthorization bill is a perfect example of the federal government overstepping its bounds to the detriment of its citizens." Also not surprising is support for the preemption provision from the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI), an organization whose members back the commercial integration of UAS into the national airspace at the earliest possible date. It sent a letter to members of the U.S. Senate which said: "Rules and regulations that determine who can fly, whether you can fly, where you can fly, how high you can fly, or when you can fly are generally the exclusive domain of the federal government. Proposals by state and local governments in these areas have the potential to create a complicated patchwork of laws that may erode, rather than enhance, air safety. Additionally, it opens the door to those jurisdictions being able to put forward proposals that could have a profound effect on the operations of the manned aviation community." The letter was signed by the Aerospace Industries Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Consumer Technology Association, DJI, the Drone Manufacturers Alliance, the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, the Small UAV Coalition, the National Business Aviation Association and Cherokee Nation Technologies. It's the classic battle between big government, big business and American citizens represented by their state and local govemments. While I'd like to think I understand the views of those who oppose the preemption provision in the Senate's FAA reauthorization bill, the UAS attorneys to whom I've spoken —who also happen to be pilots —make an excellent point: Unless the FAA can regulate unmanned aviation in the same manner it regulates manned aviation, the UAS industry will be held back and will continue to struggle because of regulatory uncertainty. ATTACHMENT 3 Jury Clears Los Angeles Filmmaker in First Criminal Drone Trial Ballard Spahr scored a decisive victory on behalf of the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) community when a Los Angeles jury returned a unanimous "not guilty" verdict in what is thought to be the first U.S. case to go to trial on a drone -specific criminal charge. In this highly publicized case, Arvel Chappell III, a filmmaker, aerospace engineer, and aviation enthusiast, was accused of violating the City of Los Angeles' newly enacted "anti -drone" ordinance, which purports to impose municipal restrictions on UAS light and can potentially subject violators to imprisonment. Mr. Chappell was the first person prosecuted under the ordinance. Ironically, at the time he was charged, Mr. Chappell was working on his latest film —Compton: The Antwon Ross Story —the fictional story of an African American teen who turns to aviation as a way to escape his crime - ridden neighborhood. The case began when Mr. Chappell was charged with violating provisions of the City of Los Angeles' UAS ordinance, which attempted to regulate drone operation within city limits — regardless of whether the city's municipal rules were inconsistent with those proposed by the federal government (namely, the Federal Aviation Administration). Early in the case, Ballard Spahr brought a constitutional challenge against the provisions of the city ordinance under which Mr. Chappell was charged, arguing that they were preempted by federal law. In response, the government dismissed all charges. But rather than dismiss the case and move on, the government filed a new charge under the same ordinance, this time alleging that Mr. Chappell operated his UAS in a "careless and reckless" manner, a standard that is defined by federal law. The government contended that Mr. Chappell's drone operation interfered with the flight of a police helicopter. Although the government's "careless and reckless" charge was clearly designed as to end -run the federal preemption argument, Ballard Spahr was unwavering in its fight to protect the rapidly growing civilian drone industry. We took the case to trial and won, vindicating Mr. Chappell and offering increased protections for the wider UAS community. "In the end, what resonated with the jury is that drones are an emerging technology that should be embraced, not stifled," said Terrence Jones, the Los Angeles -based Ballard Spahr attorney who handled the case. "As long as we all fly responsibly, we can all share the airspace —private citizens, commercial businesses, and law enforcement agencies." This verdict was significant in light of the growing popularity of commercial and recreational drone use. Currently, the retail, shipping, aerospace, and filmmaking industries, among others, are grappling with a patchwork of state and local laws regulating UAS that are being passed throughout the country. The verdict was also particularly timely: it was rendered on the same day that the FAA released its highly -anticipated final rules on the operation of small UAS for routine commercial use (Part 107). (17) Drone Eddie Paige july 4th - Facebook Search Page 1 of 1 Timeline Photos Public Posts Karen Pedersen shared Huntington Beach Police Department's ::_ photo. A FJune 17 Drone Eddie Paige Huntington Beach Police Department June 17 NO DRONE ZONE 4,993 Views N9ncie Williams, Melanie Grunder and 49 others 7 Comments Like Comment Share Drone Eddie Paige shared his post to the group: You know you grew up in Huntington Beach, CA when... July 1 Federal Aviation A�i�4�a�3�R9 Like Huntington Beach Poli- Page Liked June 17 No Drone Zone Throughout the day on the 4th of during the parade, the airspace c Beach will be extremely congesh several flyovers by HB1 during a as well as airplanes towing bann a safety hazard to other aircraft ground. Drones are not allowed i Any drone flights made within the Beach can only be done after rec from any airport/heliport within 5 to the FAA, "B4UFLY," app avails Apple devices. Before flying any FAA guidelines located on FAA.c their Federal Aviation Regulation time and up to $250,000.00 fines from drones during the 4th of Jul in a fine or arrest. MR k„ Wnte a comment 10 AS D cs� MEE° s, CITY aOF ERK G https://www.facebook.comlHuntingtonBeachPolice/photosla.14973413 5071160.3 53 64. l48... 9/6/2016 9/5/2016 , Cities and Drones Cities and Drones NLC's municipal guide, Cities and Drones, is designed to serve as a primer on drones for local officials, providing insight into the recently released federal rules relating to drone operation, as well as offering suggestions for how local governments can craft their own drone ordinances to encourage innovation while also protecting their cities. Drones have the potential to revolutionize many industries and city services, particularly as their technology advances. There are many applications for drones within the public sector at the local and state level. Drones can be used for law enforcement and firefighting, as rural ambulances, and for inspections, environmental monitoring, and disaster management. Any commercial arena that involves outdoor photography or visual inspection will likely be experimenting with drones in the near future, as will retailers who want to speed up package delivery. FROM OF POF UBLIC CORD�OR— I T 1' C,t.ERK Ci ME QAU CITY Ct ERA http://www.nlc.org/find-city-solutions/city-solutions-and-applied-research/governancelcities-and-drones 1/3 9/5/2016 Cities and Drones However, drones also present challenges. There are some safety issues, for instance, when operators fly their drones over people or near planes. City residents often have privacy concerns when any small device hovering nearby could potentially be taking photos or video. The FAA's final rule on drones left some opportunity for city governments to legislate on this issue. Rather than ban them outright, city officials should consider how this new technology might serve residents or enhance city services. CITIES AND DRONES Cities and Drones View and download the report View and download the brief View the blog post SAMPLE LEGISLATION A.odrl6uades 2-zwaw:iVrW1« r�x View and download the sample ordinance http://www.nlc.org/fiind-city-solutions/city-solutions-and-applied-research/governance/cities-and-drones 213 915/2016 Cities and Drones CONTACT US Nicole DuPuis Senior Associate, Infrastructure City Solutions and Applied Research 202-626-3050 NDuPuis@nlc.org © 2016 National League of Cities 1 660 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 450 Washington, DC 20001 http://www.nlc.org/find-city-solutions/city-solutions-and-applied-research/governance/cities-and-drones 313 A/2)16 ' The new drone rules: W hatjournalists need to know - Columbia Journalism Review olu iJournalislollReview. (http://www.cjr.org/index.php) wad � l_. ! C-_-) m .. . what do you like & dislike tell us here CJRabout our coverage? The new drone rules.. What journalists need to know Photo: AP OF 41C CIL NIEET;Ng ITY CLERK OFFIE; ,- JOA�f�, CITY CLERK 7 NEW RULES GOVERNING THE USE OF small unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), also known as drones, come into effect on August 29. The changes, released by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), make it easier for everyday journalists to incorporate drone footage into their work. But just because you can use a drone, doesn't mean you should use a drone. CJR spoke http://www.cjr.org/q_and—a/new—drone—rulesiournalists_faq.php 1/10 Cities Ordinance for the Promotion of Drone Innovation & Accountability The National League of Cities' model ordinance is designed to be flexible enough to foster innovation - and comprehensive enough to keep citizens safe. It empowers local leaders to implement solutions tailored to the needs of their community; ensures the safety of residents; avoids an undue burden on drone operators and the cities where they fly; and harnesses the transformative power of drones to improve our lives. Taken together, the components of this model ordinance create an efficient and effective system of accountability for drones operating in cities. Ordinance for the Promotion of Drone Innovation & Accountability AN ORDINANCE TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE AND SAFE USES OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT WHILE ADDRESSING Section 2 - Definitions. An "Unmanned Aircraft" shall mean an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft. This definition includes devices commonly referred to as drones, remote controlled aircraft, and model aircraft. Section 3 - Development of Rules. In addition to the specific requirements set forth below, the City directs and delegates to its City Manager the authority to develop rules for the operation of Unmanned Aircraft within the City limits, consistent with this ordinance. The City Manager must publish such rules on the City's website, or through other equivalent internet accessible systems, and must periodically report to the Council at least once per year on the implementation of such rules, including information regarding enforcement actions and the costs associated with implementing and enforcing such CONCERNS ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY. rules. The rules developed by the City Manager must Section 1 - Purpose. be consistent with the following: The City encourages the safe and responsible use of A. The City Manager may adopt reasonable Unmanned Aircraft. This ordinance is designed to restrictions on the time, place, and manner in which empower innovation while protecting and promoting a person may land, launch, or otherwise operate an the health, safety, and welfare of its citize . Unmanned Aircraft so as not to interfere with the R�r;=i�. `;� ��� �'ealth, safety, and welfare of City residents. Such or(, +1CL MEETiNG s c c:f31C 01 FICE A Model for Cities: Drones restrictions may not place an undue burden on recreational or commercial operation of Unmanned Aircraft. To ensure that restrictions are easily accessible by Unmanned Aircraft operators, such restrictions should be published on the City's website or through other equivalent internet accessible systems. B. The City Manager may require certain conditions be fulfilled prior to the take -off, landing, or operation of an Unmanned Aircraft from certain designated lands within the boundaries of the City. Section 4 - Notice of Intended Operation A. To ensure operations are accountable, no Unmanned Aircraft weighing more than 250 grams shall take -off from, land upon, or be operated from any land within the boundaries of the City without the operator first notifying the City electronically of the intended operation through an internet accessible system to be provided by the City Manager. The electronically filed notice may contain any or all of the following information as required by the City Manager: 1. The name, address, and telephone number of the person or corporation filing the notice and the telephone number at which the operator can be contacted during the operation; 2. The take -off and landing location of the operation; 3. The expected start and end time of the operation (if the operator intends to take- off and land multiple times in the same location, one notice for multiple operations may suffice, so long as the duration of the combined operations does not exceed 4 hours, after which a new notice must be filed); 4. The purpose of the operation; 5. A statement affirming that the operator has consulted relevant City rules and intends to abide by them; 6. Such other information as the City Manager shall deem reasonably necessary to inform the City whether the take- off, landing, or operation will endanger the health, safety, or welfare of persons located within the City, and if such use is inconsistent with this ordinance. B. Once notice has been electronically filed consistent with this Section 4, the operation may commence without any need for action or approval by the City, so long as such operation is consistent with City rules as outlined in Section 3. C. Notice pursuant to Section 4 above shall not apply to an operation where the take -off, landing, and operation takes place from an operator's own private property. Such operation may still be subject to nuisance, privacy, and trespass law violations. See [cross-reference to applicable sections of the municipal code]. D. The City Manager may designate areas where notice pursuant to this Section 4 above is not required. Examples of such areas may include locations where operations maybe encouraged, such as certain parks and/or model aircraft fields. E. The City Manager will provide a paper -based procedure as an alternative to the electronic system specified in this Section 4, such system will collect information identical to that specified in this Section 4 (A)(1-6). Section 5 - No Reckless Operation. No person may operate an Unmanned Aircraft in a reckless manner so as to create (a) a substantial risk of serious physical injury to another or (b) a substantial risk of damage to the property of another. Section 6 - Penalties. A person who operates an Unmanned Aircraft without first filing notice, may be punished by a fine, not to exceed $100. A person found guilty of a reckless operation or operation out of compliance with this ordinance (except for operation without first filing notice), including but not limited to operating an Unmanned Aircraft in violation of any rules developed by the City Manager, maybe punished by a fine not to exceed $500. OPTIONAL PROVISIONS Exemption regarding public use. The below language may be included if a City (a) is contemplating its own use of drones, (b) has developed a policy governing City use, and (c) would like to address City use in a separate ordinance that delineates particular restrictions tailored to City use cases. Section [#]—Exceptions. This Ordinance does not apply to an Unmanned Aircraft that is operated by the City, or by any other public agency for government related purposes in compliance with all federal laws and regulations and operated in compliance with City policies. FINDINGS AND WHEREAS CLAUSES Any of the following findings and whereas clauses can be used to support the introduction of the model ordinance, to the extent required by the particular concerns of a given city. WHEREAS, unprecedented advances in Unmanned Aircraft technology have empowered realtors, inspectors, biologists and preservationists, farmers and agricultural researchers, photographers and others to document the world around them in ways that oftentimes replace more hazardous operations; and WHEREAS, the City supports innovation, STEM education and new technology, and wants to be a home to innovative companies; and WHEREAS, after studying various alternatives for the regulation of safety, privacy, nuisance, trespass, and related police power and zoning issues raised by Unmanned Aircraft, and taking account the approaches adopted by cities across the nation, which include criminalizing or prohibiting the use of Unmanned Aircraft; and WHEREAS, the City recognizes that legitimate concerns raised by drones regarding safety, privacy, nuisance, and trespass, can be addressed largely through existing laws; and WHEREAS, the difficulty of identifying drones operators raises concerns regarding enforcement of existing laws and tying Unmanned Aircraft operators to their devices; and WHEREAS, the City has exclusive authority over land use and zoning decisions within the City, and multiple court precedents protect the ability of cities to regulate such activities that take place upon City land, including the take -off and landing of aircraft; and WHEREAS, Unmanned Aircraft are part of an Unmanned Aircraft System that is operated from land; and WHEREAS, the FAA has declared that State and local governments have historically been able to regulate the take -offs and landings of aircraft within their boundaries;' and WHEREAS, the FAA's MicroUAS (flight over people) task force has recommended that Unmanned Aircraft operators coordinate with State and local officials;2 and WHEREAS, the FAA has declared that, depending on the specific nature of the small Unmanned Aircraft operation, the remote pilot in command may need to comply with State and local trespassing rules;3 and A Model for Cities: Drones WHEREAS, the FAA has declared that "laws traditionally related to State and local police power — including land use, zoning, privacy, trespass, and law enforcement operations —generally are not subject to Federal regulation";4 and WHEREAS, the FAA has declared that the operation Unmanned Aircraft near or over the perimeter or interior of certain locations may violate State or local trespassing laws;5 and WHEREAS, the FAA has declared that they lack the resources and willingness to investigate drone related accidents involving less than $500 worth of damage or injuries that do not require hospitalization; and WHEREAS, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) best practices for UAV transparency and accountability recommend drone operators should Unmanned Aircraft operations over or within private property without consent of the property owner or without appropriate legal authority;6 and WHEREAS, public safety professionals have expressed significant concerns regarding the risks posed by Unmanned Aircraft to, and the difficult of identifying drone operators who interfere with, public safety operations; and WHEREAS, advances in technology now allow a means to balance innovation and address all of the above stated land use, safety, nuisance, privacy, and Endnotes 1 Final Rule for Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems ("Part 107"), 14 C.F.R. Part 107, available online at http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/RIN_2120-AJ6O_Clean_Signed.pdf 2 Final Report, Micro Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Aviation Rulemaking Committee, available online at http://www.faa.gov/ uas/resources/uas_reg ulations_pol icy/med is/M icro-UAS-ARC- FINAL-Report.pdf (The ARC recommends that the industry consensus standard include the requirement of a preparation of risk mitigation plan that must address, at a minimum: (a) operator qualifications; (b) the method of approval and compliance with the risk mitigation plan, including the possibility of engagement with appropriate local entities.) 3 Part 107, available online at http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/ RIN_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf 4 Part 107, available online at http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/ RI N_2120-AJ 60_Clean_Signed.pdf 5 Part 107, available online at http://www.faa.gov/uas/media/ RI N_2120-AJ60_Clean_Signed.pdf 6 "Voluntary Best Practices for UAS Privacy, Transparency, and Accountability," National Telecommunications and Information Administration ("NTIA"), https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/ publicat ions/voluntary_best_practices_for_uas_privacy_ transparency_and_accountability_O.pdf