CCMIN011508 - Laserfiche WebLink

kept in a clean and safe manner without causing damage or hazard. If conditions are not adhered to, the use permit would be subject to review, modification or revocation by the Planning Commission. He noted there are a number of public comments on the application for and against, opponent concerns are that a hawk not be considered a fowl, that the applicant not be allowed to keep a hawk, and safety issues based on concems of attacks on small pets or children. Supporters' comments are that there has been no threatening or harmful behavior, the applicant has done a good thing by capturing an injured hawk and restoring it to health before releasing it to the wild, and eating rodents or other birds is a natural characteristic of hawks which occurs naturally in the wild. In conclusion, the Planning Commission's denial was based mainly on the definition of fowl and inclusion of the hawk in that category and believes the definition is supportable and can be used to consider keeping raptors or other birds through a public review process under the permitting process without having to amend the Code. By approving the use permit, the Council would accept the interpretation that keeping hawks in a residential area would be subject to securing an animal use permit. Alternatively, the Council may approve the use permit to resolve the existing situation and direct staff to prepare a Code amendment as an option. Staff finds the method of keeping the hawk is safe, humane and in compliance with Federal and State requirements and recommends the Council uphold the appeal approving the animal use permit subject to conditions of approval. Vice Mayor Thorne questioned what would occur if the Council decides a hawk does not fit the definition of fowl and therefore it not be considered under a use permit. Mr. Iserson said the Council could deny the use permit unable to make the findings, and the applicant would need to remove the hawk from her premises. He noted that currently there is nothing in the Code that fits the classification of a wild bird in a residential neighborhood. Councilmember Cook-Kallio voiced concern on the exclusive way the ordinance was written feeling it never anticipated falconry, but also, it is inconsistent with State and Federal regulations and she looked at it as a common sense issue. Councilmember McGovern said the City received an email from a resident who she confirmed used a different Webster's Dictionary. She felt the definition the City is using is archaic and confirmed that the dictionary the City was using was not outdated. Councilmember Cook-Kallio noted that the first meaning in a dictionary is typically the first meaning kids are taught to use as the preferred meaning. Councilmember McGovern said she did not think this could be the only wild animal that could come before the City, understands that San Ramon and other cities have exotic animal ordinances and questioned if this was something the City should or should not have. City Attorney Roush said staff looked at those ordinances and found they were not particularly useful or helpful or did not do a better job of what the current ordinance does. He said the Council could direct staff to return with an exotic animal ordinance. Councilmember McGovern believes this would be relevant, and the difference between a hawk and fowl is hunting. There are questions from the Planning Commission as to whether hunting is allowed in the City and City Manager Fialho said the Spotorno Ranch property, for example, City Council Minutes 8 January 15, 2008