PC 121207 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the applicant had a number of quails in her backyard, Ms. Decker replied that she did not know but understood that the applicant had a source for live feed for the hawk. She noted that using the live feed in the mew was not a frequent occurrence and that it was part of the raptor’s training. Staff did not see any evidence of quail being maintained and believed that the applicant had a source of live feed. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blank regarding exotic animal ordinances in surrounding communities, Ms. Decker replied that ordinance amendments were often done based on need. She noted that the City was aware of these ordinances but did not do an exhaustive search for examples. She added that it was likely these ordinances were developed based on a need in those communities, similar to what the City of Pleasanton has experienced as well, for example, for pot-bellied pigs. She added that the City would have the ability to craft an ordinance amendment, which would go before City Council. She noted that if the Planning Commission would like to continue the item in order to perform research regarding other ordinances in other communities, staff would be able to return with the results of a nationwide search of exotic animal ordinances. She noted that there were 700 falconers nationwide and felt optimistic that examples could be produced. Chairperson Fox noted that San Ramon had a wild animal ordinance. Commissioner Blank noted that he was troubled by the application, more on technical grounds than anything else. He did not believe that a wolf would be allowed to be kept on leash when it was out of an enclosure and noted that a hawk and a fowl were very different in terms of biological classifications. He noted that he would not want a chicken coop next door to him, and if that were to be disclosed during a real estate transaction, he would not buy the house. He noted that he frequently observed hawks and turkey buzzards hunting in the back hills from his home, which was their nature. Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Blank’s comments, respected the art of falconry, and was not entirely opposed to the concept. She had trouble fitting this application into an ordinance which addressed fowl and noted that one dictionary defined “fowl” as “all birds,” and another defined “fowl” as “poultry.” She noted that there was no consistency among the definitions and that she tended to be more conservative. She did not believe that a hawk belonged in a fowl ordinance and would prefer to discuss a Code amendment for wild and exotic animals. Commissioner Olson noted that he would not want to live next door to a chicken coop but would not have a problem living next door to this use. He had exposure to falconry in the past and had accompanied a friend who trained a peregrine falcon. He did not believe this was a serious safety issue and added that his small Shih Tzu dog could have been taken by any of the wild hawks near his home in town but did not believe it plausible. He agreed with Commissioner Pearce’s assessment that this should not be part of the “fowl” definition and would support a Code amendment to address this issue directly. He was opposed to rejecting this use out of hand and did not see it in any way as equivalent to cockfighting; he added that there was no gambling, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 13 of 19