Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drone Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County outlines drone rules for code enforcement; supervisors seek stricter limits, reporting
Summary
Community Development staff presented a draft drone-operations policy for code enforcement focused on detecting unpermitted cannabis cultivation and other land-use violations. Supervisors and residents urged explicit prohibitions on facial recognition and requested regular reporting back to the board.
Lake County Community Development staff on Tuesday described a newly drafted policy and training plan to use drones as an investigatory tool in code-enforcement work, including cases of suspected unpermitted cannabis cultivation.
Community Development Director Mireya Turner and Code Enforcement Manager Marcus Beltramo said the county secured funding and trained staff pilots through a cannabis enforcement grant funded under Proposition 64 cohort funding. The department has licensed four staff as Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) drone pilots and said the tools will be used to gather evidence and seek inspection warrants when required.
“We’re not going to randomly fly over people’s properties,” Beltramo told the board. “We’re going to have a basis or reasonable suspicion that violations are occurring.”
The department presented a three-part policy package: (1) an inspection-warrant policy laying out when a warrant is required and how privacy expectations are assessed; (2) a drone-operations policy describing roles, safety procedures and operational limits; and (3) a records-retention policy describing how footage will be stored, redacted and released.
Supervisors questioned the policy’s wording and requested stronger, clearer prohibitions on intrusive technologies. Supervisor Sabatier asked the staff to explicitly state that the county will not deploy facial-recognition features or license-plate–reading as part of the drone program unless those tools are added later under explicit policy and legal review.
“I’m just wondering if we can identify specifically…we’re not here to do facial recognition. We’re not here to do license plate reading,” Sabatier said, urging the board to place those limits in the policy text.
Beltramo replied that the current drone models purchased for the program do not have facial-recognition capability and that the county will consult County Counsel and follow legal guidance before adopting any additional capability. He said drones will primarily be used to detect cultivation infrastructure—hoop houses, water tanks, fencing and irrigated plots—and to enable staff to gather evidence needed to obtain warrants and conduct in-person inspections.
“Illegal cultivation of cannabis can no longer occur in this county,” Beltramo said. “This is a step that we’re taking to show that we are serious.”
Supervisor Spatier asked staff to provide an annual report to the board on drone usage: the number of launches, the legal basis used (warrant vs. public vantage point), and any unexpected privacy issues encountered. Several supervisors and members of the public also asked staff to work with County Counsel to make the policy explicit that footage unrelated to a code case will be redacted and handled per records-retention rules.
No immediate board action was taken; staff said they will update the policy language to clarify permitted and prohibited uses and will return with a recommended version and reporting plan.
