Orange County Grand Jury
• 2015-2016
• Agency Response
Response to:
2015-2016 Grand Jury Final Report 07/01/16
City of Orange*
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
and it is probable their unregulated use will pose significant threats to public safety and privacy in Orange County cities and unincorporated areas. Response. This respondent agrees with this finding. With the exception of the recent Federal Aviation Administration registration
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
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. The Honorable Charles Margines Presiding Judge of the Superior Court August 23, 2016 The City Attorney will prepare a report for City Council on existing laws Response. that can be applied to the use of recreational drones in the city's jurisdiction by December 30, 2016. Each City should adopt a recreational drone ownership and operation ordinance
F2
rule, recreational drone owners are largely self-policed, which leads to a wide range of behavior. Response. This respondent agrees with this finding. Most of the cities and unincorporated areas of the County of Orange do not have
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
with regulations similar to those found in Los Angeles City ordinance #318392, by March 31, 2017, to the extent not preempted or superseded by Federal law or Federal regulations. The recommendation requires further analysis to determine the legality of Response. such ordinances in light of arguments that the FAA preempts such ordinances. Each City should inform its citizens about laws and ordinances that apply to
F3
a drone ordinance, nor do they have any immediate plans to enact an ordinance in the near future. Response. P.O. BOX 449 ORANGE, CA 92866-1591 300 E. CHAPMAN AVENUE ORANGE CIVIC CENTER The Honorable Charles Margines Presiding Judge of the Superior Court August 23, 2016 This respondent agrees with this finding. Most of the cities provide no educational programs for public awareness of the
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
recreational drone operators through print media, city-related web sites, social media sites and/or public forums by March 31, 2017. The City of Orange is currently working on the introduction of a new city Response. website and once established will provide information about laws and ordinances that apply to recreational drone operators. It is anticipated this will occur prior to March 31, 2017. Each City should establish and publish on its website a point of contact for
F4
safety issues connected to recreational drones. Response. This respondent agrees with this finding. Some Orange County cities, despite recognizing potential issues with drones, are
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
drone-related citizen complaints by December 30, 2016. The City of Orange is currently working on the introduction of a new city Response. website and once established will provide contact information for drone complaints. This may not occur until early 2017. Each City should post FAA drone ownership and operation education links on
F5
awaiting drone-related legislative action or other guidance by the State of California or FAA before enacting local ordinances. Response. This respondent agrees with this finding. The FAA-required registration of recreational drones provides a useful tool for
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
city-related websites, newsletters, and flyers by December 30, 2016. The City of Orange is currently working on the introduction of a new city Response. website and once established will look for an appropriate location for information regarding drone ownership and operation education links. This may not occur until early 2017. The County and each City should formally gather data on recreational drone
F6
local enforcement of drone ordinances. Response. This respondent agrees with this finding. Orange County cities have not established a procedure for reporting drone
No recommendations for this finding
F7
incidents, which results in under-reporting of drone safety and privacy events. Response. This respondent agrees with this finding. Grand Jury Recommendations. Each City Council should direct its City Attorney to provide a report to the
No recommendations for this finding
* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.