PC 121207 - Laserfiche WebLink

be impossible to gather all the data. He believed that there was an implied and explicit expectation that when a house is bought in a residential neighborhood in Pleasanton, a resident knows what could be in his or her own yard and what was in the neighbor’s yard. He believed that there are things one can expect and not have to worry about. He believed that a wild raptor or wild animal on the other side of the fence was not something he would expect in a residential neighborhood. He asked if the City had an enforceable and clear Municipal Code as it relates to animals. He believed the precedent would be set that it would be acceptable to have a caged, wild animal in the back yard and that the definition of “fowl” would be so broad as to allow troublesome birds. He indicated that he did not want this case to be used as a precedent and inquired whether a deadline provision would be applicable in any Municipal Code violations. He indicated his frustration that the project was being heard 14 months later. He would like the Code to be clearly defined, and a clock needs to start ticking for resolution of Municipal Code violations. In response to an inquiry by Mr. Carl regarding whether hunting was allowed in Pleasanton, Ms. Harryman replied that hunting was not mentioned in the Municipal Code, and, therefore, staff looked to the State laws. Mr. Carl noted that whether or not an election was involved in the identification process, it did not change the fact that the City had agreed there was a Municipal Code violation which he would like to see addressed. He believed that raptors were beautiful and that they should be able to live free and wild. He believed this was a blood sport and that all blood sports should be banned. He did not differentiate in his mind between this activity and dog fighting or cockfighting. He noted that all Scandinavian countries have banned hawking because they equated it to dog fighting and cockfighting. He hoped that the applicant could be separated from the issue itself. His primary concern was safety, and he was very concerned about hawk attacks. He noted that UC Davis and the Lindsay Wildlife Museum stated that while hawk attacks were infrequent, they did occur. He noted that wild animals or birds that had been in the care of humans prior to being released tended to become confused and may be more aggressive because they had lost their natural fear of humans. He noted that Lindsay Museum staff did not release birds back into the wild for that reason. Mr. Carl did not believe that a hawk equaled a fowl and noted that numerous State agricultural codes were very specific with respect to hawks, fowls, chickens, ducks, and geese; the State recognized fowl as a thing for consumption. He was concerned that the keeping of hawks would jeopardize pending real estate transactions and noted that this issue affected the entire neighborhood. He noted that there were several emails in the public record which discussed the applicant tossing live quail out of season and without a license to the hawk in the hawk enclosure. He inquired whether that was hunting without a license. He noted that UC Davis and Lindsay Wildlife Museum used dead prey. Mr. Carl believed the question of whether a caged wild animal should be acceptable in a residential neighborhood should be a clear yes-or-no issue. He believed the question of sunset provisions should be clearly addressed. He noted that several friends of his had wished to speak but had been intimidated and did not want to risk some of their standing; they were concerned PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 11 of 19