My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18 ATTACHMENT 07
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2008
>
011508
>
18 ATTACHMENT 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/10/2008 3:44:31 PM
Creation date
1/10/2008 3:04:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
1/15/2008
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
18 ATTACHMENT 07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Page 1 of 3 <br />Natalie Amos <br />From: Julie Hangman <br />Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2007 9:42 AM <br />To: <br />Cc: Natalie Amos; Donna Decker; Michael Roush <br />Subject: Conditional Use Permit Application for Hawk <br />Dan, <br />City staff and I appreciate you taking the time to forvvard your research into State laws and potential safety issues <br />related to hawks. We also appreciate you sending your questions in advance of the public hearing so that we can <br />research your issues and provide additional information to you, the Planning Commission, and the applicant so <br />that an informed decision can be made at the public hearing. <br />Rather than restating each of your questions, I have numbered your questions (below) 1-4. Here are my <br />responses: <br />1) I reviewed the code sections that you cited from the California Food and Agriculture Code. In various <br />sections related to poultry meat and other meat, the State defines "fowl" to include chickens, turkeys, <br />ducks, geese, and other domesticated species. Not surprisingly, the provisions governing poultry meat <br />do not mention hawks, as hawks are not anticipated to be bred for human consumption. <br />The Pleasanton Municipal Code (PMC) zoning regulations do not cite State law or otherwise adopt the <br />definitions set forth in the Food and Agriculture Code. Rather, the PMC zoning regulations regulate land <br />use and simply state that rabbits or fowl are allowed in the R-1 district upon granting of a conditional use <br />permit. (PMC 18.32.040) Because the PMC does not provide a definition for fowl, staff looked to <br />Webster's Dictionary to determine if a hawk would or would not fall under the definition of fowl. Webster's <br />defines fowl as "a bird of any kind". Accordingly, staff has recommended to the Commission that a hawk <br />may be kept in an, R-1 district if a conditional use permit is granted. <br />2) As explained above, a conditional use permit is required for persons who want to keep a hawk in the R-1 <br />zone. While the applicant's property is located within a PUD, the PUD is silent as to the keeping of fowl. <br />Therefore, staff looks to the zoning regulations for the R-1 district to determine whether a hawk would be <br />permitted (as of right, by conditional use permit, or not at all.) <br />3) Staff has placed conditions on the applicant that it believes will address potential safety issues. By way <br />of example, one of the conditions states that the applicant "shall ensure that the keeping and/or <br />maintenance of the hawk is done in such manner as to cause no damage or hazard to persons or <br />property in the vicinity..." Another condition states that "the hawk shall not be set loose within the <br />neighborhood, residential and/or commercial areas." Of course, the Planning Commission can place <br />additional conditions on the applicant if the Commission feels that there are other steps that could be <br />taken to address health and safety concerns. <br />4) Conditional use permits do run with the land, i.e., remain in existence even after ownership changes. <br />(PMC section 18.124.150) Thus, assuming a subsequent purchaser of this property wanted to keep a <br />hawk on the premises, the subsequent purchaser would have to comply with the conditions.of approval <br />already in place. This would include obtaining and maintaining the applicable State and Federal licenses <br />for keeping a hawk as well as all of the other conditions. <br />With regards to your question about real estate disclosures, property owners (with the advice of their real <br />estate agents) are responsible for determining what is material to the real estate transaction and what <br />items must be disclosed. The City does not dictate what types of disclosures must be made in these <br />types of cases. For example, the City would not regulate whether a seller advises potential purchasers of <br />a particular use at a nearby residence (e.g., a neighbor who has a home occupation permit, runs a day <br />care, etc.) Again, these types of disclosure decisions are for the seller to make with the advice of their <br />real estate agent. <br />In contrast, the City does occasionally place disclosure requirements (i.e., a recorded document placed <br />12/11/2007 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.