Most cities write drone rules after a delivery service shows up and residents start complaining. Belvedere, California, is doing it the other way round. On Monday, Oct. 12, the City Council is scheduled to hold the second reading of Ordinance No. 2026-02. The ordinance adds a new Chapter 8.34 to the municipal code to govern the ground side of commercial drone delivery. The Ark and DroneXL both describe it as the first ordinance in Marin County written specifically for commercial drone deliveries. According to DroneXL, no delivery drone has yet carried a package to a Belvedere doorstep, and no company has said one will.

The meeting is set for 5:30 p.m. at 450 San Rafael Ave., according to the city's official meeting page. That page lists the time, place and an agenda packet download rather than the individual agenda items. The Ark reported that the second reading was expected on Oct. 12, and DroneXL describes Monday's session as the final vote. As of publication the outcome is unknown.

How it got here

The council approved the ordinance on first reading on Sept. 14 by a 3-2 vote. The Ark reported that Mayor Sally Wilkinson, Vice Mayor Kevin Burke and Councilmember Peter Mark voted in favor. Councilmembers Jane Cooper and Pat Carapiet voted no. Their concern was the delivery hours, which run from 7 a.m. to as late as 11 p.m. and which they said could disturb residents. DroneXL reported that hours were the only point the council split on. The Ark also reported that the council added protections for public property and privacy before it voted.

If the ordinance is adopted Monday, The Ark reports, it takes effect 30 days later. The draft ordinance's effective-date section says the same.

What Chapter 8.34 actually says

The draft was prepared by City Manager Robert Zadnik and City Attorney Andrew Shen and presented in a Sept. 14 staff report. It deals only with what happens on the ground. Here is a section-by-section summary.

Where packages can land (8.34.030). Delivery ground activity is not allowed in the city's Public Access Areas unless the city gives written authorization. Operations must not block evacuation routes or fire lanes. Deliveries must go directly onto private property, and only with the resident's or homeowner's prior written or digital consent.

When (8.34.030). Permitted hours are 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. Friday and Saturday. Those windows match the city's existing noise ordinance, BMC 8.10.050. That later weekend limit is the one Cooper and Carapiet objected to.

Facilities (8.34.040 through 8.34.060). The ordinance separates individual deliveries from a "Commercial Drone Delivery Facility," meaning a property or location used systematically to send, receive or stage 20 or more deliveries a month. Facilities are prohibited in residential zones. A property that receives fewer than 20 deliveries a month does not count as a facility, so a household that orders often is not treated as a depot. Deliveries of prescribed medications and medical equipment are exempt from that 20-delivery limit. Facilities may only operate in the Mixed Use zone, and only with a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. The staff report notes that "retail" is already a permitted use in the Mixed Use zone and that a drone delivery facility could qualify as retail, because the existing zoning chapter neither authorizes nor prohibits such facilities. The new chapter addresses that open question directly.

Privacy (8.34.080). Persons making commercial drone deliveries may not intentionally record, save or sell video, audio or photo data of residents or private property. Camera and sensor data may be collected only as strictly necessary to navigate safely, avoid collisions, or comply with a government investigation. The draft cites California Civil Code 17800.8 in this section.

Enforcement (8.34.090). If the city confirms a violation, it issues warnings, administrative citations, nuisance-abatement orders, or suspends or revokes permits, or pursues any other lawful remedy.

Federal preemption (8.34.010 and 8.34.100). The chapter states that it does not regulate drone flights. Section 8.34.100 says the ordinance does not regulate airspace, drone flight paths, altitudes, pilot licensing or aircraft equipment, which are overseen by the FAA. It also says that if the FAA's jurisdiction conflicts with any application of the ordinance, that application will not be enforced.

The staff report classifies the ordinance as not a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and otherwise exempt, and says no significant fiscal impact is anticipated.

The preemption question

The careful wording of 8.34.100 has a reason. Local governments that have tried to control drones in the air have lost in court. DroneXL points to a 2017 federal court decision that struck down Newton, Massachusetts' drone ordinance, which included an altitude limit, an overflight ban and a local registration requirement. Belvedere's chapter avoids that ground. It deals with land use, consent to land on private property, operating hours tied to the existing noise code, and data privacy. Those are areas where municipalities have long had authority. It leaves the sky to the FAA.

That makes it a fairly modest instrument. It does not decide whether a drone can fly over a Belvedere roof. It decides where the drone can set a package down, at what hours, with whose permission, and whether an operator can set up a base in town.

A rulebook without a player

No service is coming yet. DroneXL reports that Wing said in March it would bring delivery to the Bay Area "in the coming months." In June, Wing named the region again on a Walmart list for 2027. DroneXL says it did not name a specific city either time. Belvedere is therefore legislating for something that may arrive in its region but has not been promised to the town.

DroneXL is also running a resident survey on the issue. The survey is self-selected and is not a scientific poll, and the outlet's views on the ordinance are its own editorial position. Neither should be read as a measure of local opinion.

Why It Matters

Drone delivery is spreading out from its early test markets, and the rules on the ground are being written city by city. Belvedere's chapter is a compact example of what a city can regulate without running into federal law. It covers consent before landing on private property, hours borrowed from an existing noise code, a numeric threshold separating a frequent customer from a facility, zoning limits on where operators can base themselves, and limits on recording and selling data about residents. Each of these is a land-use or privacy tool, and the chapter states plainly that it does not touch flight.

Other cities could copy this approach. For operators, the provisions most likely to matter are the facility rules. The 20-deliveries-a-month threshold and the requirement for a conditional use permit in the Mixed Use zone bear directly on whether a company can stage operations in town at all or must fly in from somewhere else. The prior-consent requirement also appears to shift some compliance work onto the customer sign-up process.

The 3-2 split shows where the friction is likely to be. According to DroneXL, hours were the only point on which the council divided. The dissenters objected to how late in the evening residents might have to hear a drone. If Monday's vote holds, Belvedere will have answered that question before any drone has flown there.

Sources