Laserfiche WebLink
<br />During the discussion, the Planning Connnission found that it ~as not unreasonable to allo~ up <br />to six chickens regardless of the size, eogo, standards vs, bantaITIs, did not ~ish to include a <br />procedure to allo~ an increase in the allo~ed nUlTIber by either a variance or conditional use <br />permit, and detenTIined it ~as unnecessary to include keeping caponso <br /> <br />The proposed Code aITIendlTIent, Exhibit A, is based on the actions of the Planning ComlTIissiono <br />Staff supports the alTIendments lTIade by the Planning COlTIlTIissiono <br /> <br />Public COlTIlTIents are addressed in the section belovvo The DeCelTIber 14,2005 Planning <br />COlTIlTIission lTIeeting ITIinutes are also attached for the Council's infonTIation. <br /> <br />PUBLIC COMMENTS <br /> <br />Notice of this application ~as sent to the nevvspapers, the applicants of the last t~o chicken- <br />related conditional use permits, all persons ~ho spoke at these hearings, all persons ~ho <br />requested the staff reports for these hearings, and one faITIily ~ishing to keep their existing <br />chickenso At the tilTIe this staff report ~as ~ritten, staff had received the follo~ing COlTIlTIents <br />about the proposal. <br /> <br />Staff received a request (via e-ITIail) to consider an increase in the nUlTIber of chickens based on <br />the size differences bet~een types of chickenso The Planning COlTIlTIission also heard testimony <br />related to this issue and increased the nUlTIber to six accordingly 0 <br /> <br />Testimony ~as also given by Angelina Summers, vvho did not feel the keeping of chickens ~as <br />essential and argued that only t~o conditional use permits had COITIe before the Planning <br />COlTIlTIission for considerationo This did not appear to her to necessitate changing the Code frOITI <br />a conditional use to a permitted use, <br /> <br />ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br /> <br />Projects of this nature are categorically exempt frOlTI the requirements of the California <br />EnvironlTIental Quality Act (CEQA)o Therefore, no enVirOnlTIental document accoITIpanies this <br />reporto <br /> <br />FISCAL IMPACT <br /> <br />The proposed ordinance vvould have no financial iITIpact on the City 0 <br /> <br />SR 06:015 <br />Page 6 of' 7 <br />