PC 121405 - Laserfiche WebLink

4_ REVISIONS AND OMISSIONS TO THE AGENDA Ms. Dcckcr advised that Item 6. a., PAP-90, Brian Arkin- Appellant (PS1llR-246_ Pleasant Plaza Slxopnina CJenter, would be heard when Comxrxissioner Arkin arrives because he is the appellant. Commissioner Roberts requested that because of the length of the agenda, Itexrx 6_~_, PUD-99-14 Kazuo Hats ushi, be continued to the meeting of January 11, 2006. The Commission concurred with Commissioner Roberts' suggcstiorx_ S_ MATTERS CONTINUED FON DF_C[SiON S_a_ PRZ-30. City of Pleasanton Consideration of amendments to Chapter 1 8 and related sections of the Pleasanton Municipal Code to allow the keeping of chickens in designated zoning districts without discretionary review or a public hearing. Ms_ Decker summarized the staff report and described the history of this item- At the request of both City Council and the Planning Commission, staff investigated and provided a potential Code amendment that would allow the keeping of chickens- Certain standards were also identified with the previous conditional use permits that exaxrxined. the preferable number of chickens as well as noise considerations and. impacts- Staff believed that chickens could be kept in a residential area, although there was no substantive research regarding the number of chickens; four had been the breakline with previous conditional use permits for asingle-family residential di.strict_ With respect to the concerns regarding Avian Influenza, staff had provided several articles, and a xrxenio providing expert advice stating that if standard United States Department of Agriculture ~USDA~ cleanliness and animal husbandry practices were conducted, that would probably pre-empt any significant issues with Avian Intuenza; vaccination was not indicated at this time within the United States. California and Minnesota arc two states that have a sentinel process for virus detection. Infected birds within a oize-rile radius would require the euthanasia of fowl~ Staff recommended that the Planning Commission find that the adoption of the proposed amendment as outlined in the staff report and the Municipal. Code are statutorily exempt from C)/QA and that a resolution recommending PRZ-30 to the Ciiy Council regarding the keeping of chickens be allowed in the single-family residential district. However, if there is a determination by the Commission that there was a threat and. risk of Avian Influenza is so great that the proposed Code amendment would be denied, the Corrmission xriay recommend to City Council that the Codc an-iendment be adopted, with the addition of the following language relating to Avian Influenza- "The owner is responsible for practicing standard animal husbandry and is required to maintain the chickens in a healthy condition and have them inoculated if available, or recomnicndcd by the USDA. If not, it would be subject to review and consideration by the Plax~ning Director-" PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES December 14, 2005 Page 3 of 18