Loading...
01 Attachment 5Page 1 of 4 TOWN OF LOS GATOS OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM To: Mayor & Council From: Robert Schultz, Town Attorney Date: January 15, 2019 Subject: Ordinance and Policy Priorities for the January 22, 2019 Priority Setting Study Session __________________________________________________________________________________ The Town Attorney’s Office is continually evaluating the Municipal Code for needed updates and provides this Memorandum to assist the Town Council in its Priority Setting Study Session. The list is in order of recommended priority. However, please realize that although these ordinances are in recommended priority, many issues may arise during the year that can alter these priorities. 1. Short Term Rental Ordinance The Town currently does not have any regulations for short term vacation rental properties. Since the Town does not have any regulations, it has prohibited the rental of property for less than 30 days. In October 2018, the Town Council voted unanimously to refer the item to the Policy Committee for further discussion with input from Council members. Council requested additional research regarding how neighboring municipalities have responded to this issue and considerations that those jurisdictions took into account when formulating their approaches. The Policy Committee studied and analyzed the impacts of short term vacation rentals on residential neighborhoods, the overall cost and availability of housing in the Town, and the revenue th at could be generated by short term vacation rentals. After studying the issue and receiving input from the public, the Policy Committee voted to forward a draft Short Term Rental Ordinance to Council. The Town Council will consider the draft ordinance on February 5, 2019. 2. Alternating Use of Parking Ordinance In 2018, the Town Council Policy Committee considered e conomic vitality initiatives to streamline application processes for Town businesses. Members of the Town’s business community attended the meeting. One of the topics discussed was shared parking and how to make the process streamlined and affordable for businesses. Based upon the discussion, the Policy Committee’s recommendation was to bring forward a code amendment to Planning Commission and Town Council to deregulate and create an incentive for shared parking by no longer requiring a CUP and allowing shared parking through a ministerial permit process. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this matter on January 23, 2019 and make a recommendation to the Town Council. ATTACHMENT 5 Page 2 of 4 3. Appeal Process Ordinance Based upon the number of appeals in 2017, the Town Policy Committee asked staff to place streamlining the land use appeal process on their agenda so that the matter could be discussed. The Policy Committee reviewed, analyzed, and received public comment on proposed potentially amendments to the Town appeals process. The proposed amendments to the Town’s appeal process will first be heard by the Planning Commission in the Spring and then their recommendation will then be forwarded to the Town Council. 4. Hillside Fence Ordinance On December 5, 2017, the Town Council considered a draft Ordinance for amendments to the Town Code regarding fences, hedges, and walls. During public testimony, David Weissman suggested alternative ordinance language. The Town Council discussed the draft Ordinance and continued the matter pending the outcome of the Strategic Priorities session. On February 20, 2018, the Town Council adopted Strategic Priorities for 2018 – 2020, which included continuing work on the Fences Ordinance. In 2018, Staff worked with Mr. Weissman and members of the public on a draft Ordinance that was considered by the Town Council on October 16, 2018. At that meeting, Town Council moved to forward the draft Ordinance to the Town Council Policy Committee. The Policy Committee reviewed, analyzed, and received public comment on proposed potentially amendments to the Fence Ordinance. The proposed amendments to the Fence Ordinance will first be heard by the Planning Commission in Spring and then their recommendation will then be forwarded to the Town Council. 5. Wireless Facilities Ordinance The Town’s current Wireless Facilities Ordinance was adopted in 2003 to conform to the 1996 Telecommunications Act and is now outdated based on the ongoing changes to State and Federal legislation and leaves the Town unprepared for the scale of expansion that is on the horizon. Our current Ordinance only deals with the collocation of wireless facilities on existing utility poles. Various wireless facility companies are now proposing installations in the public right of way. Such installations could be on existing Town -owned structures, such as street light poles, or could involve the companies putting in their own new poles. The Town needs to update its wireless telecommunications ordinance to address the current status of Federal and State law as well as to reflect best practices in siting and design standards to preserve the aesthetics of the Town but to also facilitate providing competitive, varied, and high quality wireless communications service infrastructure. 6. Weed Abatement Ordinance The Town’s Weed Abatement Ordinance was adopted in 1968 and establishes a program and procedure to maintain weeds in an effort to eliminate hazardous conditions. Following the devastating wild fires of the past few years, the Town should update the Ordinance to expand the definition of weeds to include other dead vegetation, fallen limbs, and combustible trash on private property and add additional language to clarify and strengthen the Town’s weed Page 3 of 4 abatement program. Additionally, ordinance amendments would help property owners to understand their responsibilities in property maintenance. 7. Horse Drawn Vehicles Ordinance The Town’s Horse Drawn Vehicles was adopted in 1968 and establishes specific parameters for the operation of horse-drawn carriages in Town and includes a few provisions that may be modified with Town Council approval, including carriage route, hours of operation, and loading zone location. The ordinance specifically does not allow a horse-drawn vehicle to be operated by more than one (1) horse carry more than four (4) passengers at one time excluding the drive r even though historically they have been allowed. The Town should update the Ordinance to conform to current practice and be reviewed for other needed changes. 8. Shared Mobility Device Ordinance The Town does not have a Shared Mobility Device Ordinance. Shared mobility devices, such as electric scooters (e.g., Bird, Lime-S) and bikes (e.g. LimeBike, JUMP, Mobike, Spin), have surged locally and in cities throughout the United States. These mobility devices can be rented by the public via a smartphone application that unlocks the motorized devices from any location and lets the user park it when the rider arrives at their chosen destination. These mobility devices are highly visible, drawing considerable attention and controversy when they arrive in any area. They have raised significant community concerns about safety and enforcement, including concerns about users riding on the sidewalk, doubling up on scooters, users failing to observe traffic controls in violation of the California Vehicle Code and other unsafe or uncivil rider behaviors. The devices have also posed new challenges in managing the safe public use of the street and sidewalks. The Town should adopt an ordinance regulating shared mobility service in the Town that would include permitting requirements and an operational framework. 9. Public Nuisance Ordinance/Administrative Abatement Hearing Ordinance The Town does not have a comprehensive Public Nuisance Ordinance related to the identification, definition, and enforcement of nuisances. Such an Ordinance would make identification of violations easier for residents and businesses to understand and thereby comply with, as well as to assist the Town in enforcing the Code and providing due process. The Nuisance Ordinance would provide a just, equitable, and practicable method for preventing, discouraging, and/or abating certain conditions which endanger the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the general public. Currently, the Administrative Abatement of Violations section of our Town Code is antiquated and needs to be updated to allow for the enforcement of Code violations through administrative hearings effectively applied and administered in a fair, expedient, and cost-efficient manner. 10. Drone Ordinance The Town does not have a Drone Ordinance. The issue of drones and Radio Controlled (RC) aircraft, otherwise referred to as unmanned aerial systems (UAS) is a growing concern for towns and cities with multiple incidents of interference with firefighting, other aircraft, and accidents. Page 4 of 4 Towns/cities are attempting to address the dramatic increase in recreational UAS with various types of regulations and are beginning to enact regulations that supplement and/or codify federal law. The major challenge in drafting these ordinances is the federal pre-emption of this issue but a Drone Ordinance could regulate the following issues for the Town: 1) Protection of persons and property in the jurisdiction; 2) Aviation safety, including a specific prohibition against careless and reckless operations that endanger life or property; 3) Designated take-off and landing zones for UAS within the Town limits; 4) Identification of critical infrastructure within the Town limits, or immediately adjacent to its boundaries, with appropriate rules for operation of UAS in proximity to that infrastructure; and 5) Permissible hours of operation. 11. Noise Ordinance The Town’s Noise Ordinance was adopted in 1991. With the changes to the Town’s Entertainment Policy, the Town needs to analyze and determine whether the noise levels set forth in the Noise Ordinance adequately protect the residents of Los Gatos from unnecessary, excessive, and disturbing noise and vibration. 12. Motor Vehicle and Traffic Ordinance In the course of defending a traffic ticket appeal, it was revealed that there are some necessary changes to the Motor Vehicles and Traffic section of the Code, Chapter 15. Specifically, Chapter 15 was adopted in 1968 and requires the Chief of Police to approve any street sign before obedience to same can be required. This section controverts the common sense requirement that street sign approval is the province of the Town Engineer; however it gives credence to challenges by litigious individuals. The rest of this Code s ection would also be reviewed for other needed changes. 13. Claims/Settlement Authority Ordinance The Town’s current Claims Ordinance has not been updated since 2003. With the passage of time, certain provisions have become outdated and other provisions have not historically been followed. This proposed update to the Ordinance would conform to current practice, and update current settlement limits to allow for more expeditious settlement of claims and disposition of workers compensation claims. RWS