PC 121207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ms. Harryman noted that if the City Council were to uphold the Planning Commission’s decision, she did not believe the applicant would need to remove the hawk from the property if the applicant submitted an application for a Code amendment. Ms. Decker noted that Code amendments were generally initiated by staff because of a need but that members of the community may initiate the discussion as well. She clarified that processing Code amendments were prioritized by the City Council. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding whether the applicant could request a variance, Ms. Decker replied that would not be possible because variances were processed for site development standards; this was a use, and staff interpreted the Code as such. She understood that the Commission’s general opinion was that the hawk was supported, but that the conditional use permit findings could not be made under the definition of “fowl.” She further understood that the Commission would like staff to process a Code amendment to address a wild animals ordinance. She noted that it was not in staff’s capacity to follow the Planning Commission’s request for a Code amendment as this was an internal discussion and subject to the City Council’s determination of its priority. The Council may or may not direct the creation of a Code amendment to keep a hawk in an R-1 district. She cited the example of the residential sprinkler ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission, which has not been processed as a priority by the City Council. Commissioner Blank believed the wild animal ordinance should be addressed and did not believe that this would be the only occurrence of this kind of use. Commissioner Narum would rather continue the item. ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Commissioners Blank, Fox, and Pearce. NOES: Commissioners Narum and Olson. ABSTAIN: None. RECUSED: None. ABSENT: Commissioner O’Connor. Resolution No. PC-2007-51 denying Case PAUP-4 was entered and adopted as motioned. 7. MATTERS INITIATED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS Wild Animal Ordinances in the Bay Area Commissioner Blank requested that staff bring back to the Commission, without the excessive expenditure of staff resources, as much relevant data as possible regarding cities that have falconry laws, particularly in California. Ms. Decker noted that there were no local falconry laws but that they fell under State and federal laws. The keeping of raptors would fall under wild animal ordinances. She noted that staff would return with examples of such ordinances. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 15 of 19