18 ATTACHMENT 15 - Laserfiche WebLink

Message Page 2 of 2 the area should be able to presume that their small pets and children should be safe from any potential harm that such a wild animal poses Qust search the Internet for documented attacks like the one in Great Britain on a child several years ago). Furthermore, the logistics and litigation that can arise from surrounding property owners not informing future buyers of this safety hazard /CUP during a real estate transaction could be problematic and liability could be brought back to the City. From a planning perspective, this could also open Pandora's Box allowing exotic or dangerous wild animals in all residential neighborhoods in Pleasanton. If I get a license from the State of California and the Federal Government to raise wolves or keep a mountain lion cub in my back yard, would this be allowed in a residential neighborhood and classified as a "dog" or a "cat?" Would I also be able to get a CUP? In light of your recent decision to not allow large fowl on the Hatsushi property (4.5 acres), it seems inconsistent and looks tike preferential treatment is being given to a local elected official to allow a large trained to kill raptor in a residential neighborhood just several hundred yards away. Please put safety and "common sense" first and do not allow this use in a residential neighborhood via code change or CUP. If you haven't already done so, I would encourage you to watch the care and feeding of this animal live at the applicants property -inspect the premises and proximity to other houses where there could now or in the future be small children or pets -look at the safety gear the applicant must use and understand the safety risk during the 2-4 hours a day the trained to kill raptor is supposed to be exercised outside the cage. Observing avivisection/feeding session would also be insightful. Please also note that one neighbor has objected to this permitted use (as documented in the staff report), and another has been leveraged by the applicant to keep quiet due to a past property dispute over a tree (as documented in an on-the-public record a-mail available from the City Clerks office). Also note that the applicant herself stated in another public record a-mail available from the City Clerk that her raptor was NOT a fowl (although she used much more colorful language). If you feel any pressure from this applicant in her elected official capacity due to "quid pro quo" or fear retribution if you don't "toe the line"-please recuse yourself from weighing in and voting on this controversial issue. Otherwise, please vote to enforce our current municipal code and rectify this long standing illegal use on the property in question. Best Regards - Dan Carl 12/5/2007