18 - Laserfiche WebLink

representative at CRC stated that they have never heard of a falconer's bird attacking people and/or animals. He stated that it is more likely for an imprinted bird that was raised in captivity to attack small animals and/or people since they are dependent on people for food. The Lindsey Wildlife Museum also said that it is more likely for an imprinted bird to attack small animals and/or people and they also stated that it is highly unlikely that a bird used for falconry would attack small animals or people. Representatives of both facilities stated that they have not heard reports in California, or specifically the Bay Area, of hawk attacks on people. Public Notice and Comment Notice of the City Council's public hearing on this item was sent to all property owners and tenants living within a 1,000-foot radius of the subject property. As of the drafting of this report, staff has not received any additional public comments. For public comments and correspondences that have been received, please see Attachment 12. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15061(b) (3), this activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Staff finds that there is no possibility that the activity in question will have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, this activity is not subject to CEQA, and no environmental document accompanies this report. CONCLUSION In staffs opinion, a hawk can be included under the category of a fowl since a fowl can be defined as a "bird of any kind." Staff also acknowledges that the fowl can be defined in a variety of ways. The City of Pleasanton requires an animal use permit for the keeping of fowl in single-family residential districts provided the keeping or maintenance of the animals is done in such a manner, number, or kind that does not cause damage or hazard to persons or property in the vicinity or to generate offensive noise, dust, or door. The proposed use meets these standards. Staff acknowledges that the Planning Commission does not agree with staffs interpretation, but staff suggests that this definition of fowl is supportable and can be applied to a range of birds under the City's existing use permit process without having to amend the Code. In approving this use permit, the Council would be providing an interpretation that birds such as raptors are considered as "fowl" for purposes of this application and that keeping them in a residential area would be subject to the approval of an animal use permit. Moreover, all applicable State and federal regulations would need to be met. Staff finds that the applicant's care of the hawk meets all standards and that its housing, the mew, is positioned conscientiously, is kept tidy, and does not produce any odor or ill effect. The applicant is maintaining all applicable State and federal licensing requirements, and, in staff's opinion, the hawk appears to be comfortable in its surroundings. Staff further finds that the hawk does not pose harm to the surrounding Page 6 of 7