CCMIN010306 - Laserfiche WebLink

of these issues were addressed in one section dealing with this particular issue, it would be more clearly understood by applicants. Mr. Brozosky questioned the value of adding a section that would require an owner to have the chickens inoculated if available because inoculations sometimes have negative consequences or for people with 4-H projects, it could be costly and unnecessary for the environment in Pleasanton. He asked staff for its reason in including this requirement in the proposed ordinance? Mr. Iserson said several Planning Commissioners raised concerns that people might be concerned about the spreading of the Avian Influenza and it wanted to add language to address it to eliminate any concerns. He agreed with Mr. Brozosky that if the Federal or State governments required inoculations, it would be required whether or not it was included in the proposed ordinance. Mr. Brozosky wanted to eliminate a preconceived fear that was not based on fact. He believed the real risk to Pleasanton if the Avian Influenza did spread would not be spread by chickens and would be spread by wild birds in the community. He asked staff why it believed it was not necessary to allow people to have more than six chickens or if it was open to requiring a conditional permit for anything over six chickens, which would give someone with a large backyard flexibility. He believed R-1 One-Family Residential zoning districts carried everything from a zero lot line up to five or six acres in Pleasanton. Mr. Iserson said the largest R-1 One-Family Residential zoning district is the minimum of 40,000 square feet. The overriding drive on the part of staff was to respond to the public hearing process and the fact that it seemed to reflect other neighborhood issues that were raised during the discussion about chickens. Staff believed if it could develop a set of rational standards then it would accomplish the same thing as it would with requiring a conditional use permit/public hearing and avoid some of the neighborhood entanglements that sometimes result. He noted that staff is being asked by the business community and at times decision makers, to try and eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and the goal was to include standards in the Municipal Code and avoid public hearing processes, staff reports and notifications. It did not mean that a conditional use permit could be reserved for those instances that are rare where someone who lives on a large lot might want to keep more than six chickens. Mr. Brozosky said he wanted to simplify the process for standard projects such as the 4- H Club, which is why he brought this matter to Council initially. He was aware of residents who have large lots who are keeping more than six chickens and he wanted to allow residents in R-1 One-Family Residential zoning districts to have this ability. Ms. McGovern asked staff if a City ordinance existed based on zoning for the number of animals that a resident may keep? Mr. Iserson said household pets are limited to dogs and cats and a resident is allowed to have a combined total of four dogs and/or cats and after that, it is defined as a kennel and kennels are not allowed in a single-family residential neighborhood. Staff is informed of this violation if it receives code enforcement complaints and it responds accordingly. Ms. McGovern did not understand how the amount of keeping chickens versus dogs was measured as dogs take up more room, are noiser and can do more damage. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 5 01/03/06