18 - Laserfiche WebLink

DISCUSSION Planning Commission On December 12, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the subject application. After hearing staffs presentation and taking public testimony, the Commission denied the applicant's request by a 3-to-2 vote. The Commission felt that the findings were based on the definition of a fowl and believed that a hawk should not be classified as a fowl. The Pleasanton Municipal Code does not provide a definition of a fowl, but Webster's Dictionary defines a fowl as "a bird of any kind." However, the Commission did not agree with this definition of a fowl, citing other, more limited definitions and, therefore, could not make the use permit findings. The applicant did not agree with the Commission's decision and has, therefore, appealed to the City Council. The December 12, 2007 Planning Commission draft meeting minutes are attached for the Council's information (Attachment 4). Definition The Planning Commission denied the application based on staffs interpretation that the definition of "fowl" includes hawks. The Municipal Code does not include a use classification specifically for hawks or raptors; therefore, staff determined that the closest "Code" category for such birds would be "fowl." The Municipal Code does not define fowl, so staff consulted Webster's Dictionary for a definition. Webster's first definition of a fowl is "a bird of any kind," and a bird is defined as "any of a class of warm-blooded vertebrates distinguished by having the body more or less completely covered with feathers and the forelimbs modified as wings." Staff also reviewed the applicable sections of the California Food and Agriculture Code. In various sections related to poultry meat and other meat, the State defines "fowl" to include chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and other domesticated species. Not surprisingly, the provisions governing poultry meat do not mention hawks as hawks are not anticipated to be bred for human consumption. Staff notes that the Municipal Code zoning regulations do not cite State law or otherwise adopt the definitions set forth in the Food and Agriculture Code. Rather, the Code zoning regulations regulate land use and simply state that rabbits or fowl are allowed in the R-1 district upon granting a conditional use permit. Accordingly, staff made the interpretation that "fowl" included hawks and recommended to the Commission that a hawk may be kept in an R-1 district if an animal use permit is approved. The Commission stated that it had trouble fitting the hawk into an ordinance dealing with fowl and that it did not agree with staffs definition. The Commission felt that fowl, as commonly used, is limited to domesticated birds, such as chickens and turkeys, and would not include wild birds, such as hawks and other raptors. The Commission concluded that the Code should be amended to specifically define and categorize such birds. Staff acknowledges that "fowl" can be defined in a variety of ways but believes that in the absence of a clear definition, an interpretation that "fowl" includes all birds' leads to the desired result: an application for an animal use permit subject to the approval of the Page 4 of 7