PC 121207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Fox asked whether it is staff's interpretation that an eagle, ostrich, or a burrowing owl is a fowl, including endangered species. She inquired if staff would consider an ostrich that is being requested to stay in one’s backyard a fowl. Ms. Harryman replied that staff used Webster's dictionary and did not do a technical definition; it was up to the Commission to determine if a hawk is a fowl. Ms. Harryman indicated that the Planning Commission can choose to determine that a hawk is not a fowl, similar to Commissioner Blank's research. She indicated that Commissioner Blank's sources conclude that fowl is an edible bird and the applicant's remedy may be to apply for a Code amendment. She indicated that if the conclusion is that a red-tailed hawk is a fowl, then staff would consider an ostrich a fowl and applicants would have to apply in a similar manner to determine if it was appropriate to have a fowl in a residential neighborhood as it relates to safety and all the other issues. Chairperson Fox indicated in the use permit cases of the Hudsons and the Beckers, staff had determined according to the Pleasanton Municipal Code that a bird such as a rooster is not a fowl so that a fowl is not, in fact, any bird. This disagrees with staff's new definition of a fowl now including all types of birds. Commissioner Pearce inquired how the Webster’s definition of “fowl” had come to be used. She noted that in her research of definitions of fowl, some gave “poultry” as the first definition. Ms. Harryman replied that was the dictionary kept in the City Attorney’s office. Commissioner Pearce noted that Black’s Law Dictionary did not contain a definition of the word “fowl.” Staff replied that Webster’s dictionary is the only one staff has. Chairperson Fox noted that in the plans for the Vineyard Corridor and the Hatsushi property, she interpreted that the City documents state what a “fowl” is. They are duck, chickens, geese, guinea fowl which are explicitly listed along with turkeys. The specific plans and City documents delineate the definition of a “large” fowl vs. a “small” fowl” and confine the definition to those animals. She inquired why the City is now changing the definition of fowl when in the past, City documents specifically confined the definitions to these particular animals, which did not include a hawk. Ms. Decker replied that she did not recall what specific plans state the City’s definition of a fowl and asked Chairperson Fox to point out these definitions. Ms. Decker indicated they may only be examples of fowl rather than constituting an all-inclusive list of fowl. Ms. Decker noted that animals and birds that people have historically kept, such as chickens, geese, and pigs, were listed; it was not the City’s intent that those constitute only fowl. Likewise, the list including sheep and cattle would not preclude any other kind of livestock considered for agriculture, such as llamas, horses, goats, or Shetland ponies. Similarly, these limitations generally addressed the numbers of birds or animals. Chairperson Fox referred staff to page 44 of the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan which defines “large fowl” by placing in parentheses, turkey and goose. Next to “small fowl” in parentheses are the words chicken, ducks, and guinea fowl. Chairperson Fox also read from the Happy Valley Specific Plan and indicated that fowl is defined as chicken, ducks, geese, and turkeys. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, December 12, 2007 Page 9 of 19