Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/2012 Staff: City Council Members: Rhonda Smiley, Assistant to the City Manager Sue Benham, Chair Jacquie Sullivan Rudy Salas Regular Meeting of the Legislative and Litigation Committee of the City Council – City of Bakersfield Monday, October 22, 2012 12:00 p.m. City Hall North First Floor – Conference Room A 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield CA 93301 A G E N D A 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion Regarding Ownership of Chickens in Urban Residential Zones – McIsaac / Eggert / Gennaro 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 6. ADJOURNMENT City Council Members: Rhonda Smiley, Assistant to the City Manager Sue Benham, Chair Jacquie Sullivan Rudy Salas AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Special Meeting of the LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Tuesday, September 18, 2012 - 12:00 p.m. City Hall North First Floor – Conference Room A 1600 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301 The meeting was called to order at 12:00 PM. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Sue Benham, Chair Councilmember Rudy Salas Absent: Councilmember Jacquie Sullivan Staff Present: Alan Tandy, City Manager Ginny Gennaro, City Attorney Rhonda Smiley, Asst. to the City Manager Andrew Heglund, Deputy City Attorney Steven Teglia, Asst. to the City Manager Richard Iger, Associate Attorney Chris Huot, Administrative Analyst Nelson Smith, Finance Director Doug McIsaac, Community Development Director Cheryl Perkins, City Treasurer Phil Burns, Building Director Tessa Andrews, Treasury Supervisor Others Present: Antonie Boessenkool, Bakersfield Californian Hannah Austin, Bakersfield Resident 2. ADOPT MAY 22, 2012 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted Legislative and Litigation Committee Agenda Summary Report September 18, 2012 Page 2 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 4. NEW BUSINESS At the request of Committee Chair Benham, Item 4B was discussed prior to Item 4A. B. Discussion Regarding Ownership of Chickens on Residential Zones – Gennaro / Burns City Attorney Ginny Gennaro stated chickens are currently allowed in residential suburban, residential holding, and agricultural zones and must be contained in a yard or a pen. The City of Santa Rosa and the City of San Diego have adopted, or are in the process of adopting, ordinances allowing chickens within residential zones in urban environments. City Attorney Gennaro also stated the City has spent years enforcing no chickens in residential zones, and a change in policy would require public education and numerous public hearings. Building Director Phil Burns stated chickens could currently be allowed in residential zones, under a conditional use permit (CUP) requirement. This process also requires a public meeting be held to allow for public comments. The Board of Zoning Adjustment would then make a determination of approval or denial and/or stipulate any conditions or setbacks which may apply. Committee Chair Benham asked if any individual homeowner can apply for a CUP and what the related costs are. Building Director Burns stated any individual homeowner can apply and the cost would be approximately $2,000 to $4,000. He also stated that the last application for a similar CUP was received in 2006, which resulted in the applicant withdrawing the application, as numerous individuals, both in favor and opposed, spoke regarding the matter. Prior to 2006, one additional CUP application was processed in 2002. Building Director Burns stated that significant Code Enforcement issues could arise if there was a change to the current ordinance, including but not limited to: • Individuals may not maintain their animals; • Odors from cages; • Free range animals in a yard that is not maintained; • The potential of increase in rodents and flies; and • An increase of noise from the chickens. There have been 49 related cases in 2012, of which 35 were citizen complaints against chickens and roosters. In 2011, there were 36 related cases, of which 32 were citizen complaints. Educating the party in violation usually results in the individual abating the matter themselves. Staff has not had to seize any chickens involved in any complaints, to date. Legislative and Litigation Committee Agenda Summary Report September 18, 2012 Page 3 Committee member Jacquie Sullivan inquired as to the high cost for the CUP. Building Director Burns responded there are several elements contributing to the cost, including researching of the neighborhood, distributing public notices to residents within 300 feet, and holding a public hearing. Committee member Rudy Salas if there were any public health concerns. Building Director Burns stated the concerns include odor, insects, diseases from bird species and dwelling setbacks, among others. Committee chair Benham asked staff to research the City of Santa Rosa’s ordinance, including how long the ordinance has been effect, what kinds of issues they may have, how of the community has accepted the ordinance, have complaints and conflicts among neighbors increased, and what the experience in San Diego has been and report back to the Committee. City Attorney Gennaro stated that the ordinance adopted by the City of Santa Rosa was recent, but additional research would be conducted. Bakersfield resident Hannah Austin stated she has had pet chickens in her backyard in the City of Santa Rosa. Ms. Austin recently moved back to Bakersfield without her chickens but would like to bring them to Bakersfield. Committee Chair Benham asked Ms. Austin to describe her experience with odors. Ms. Austin stated the experience has been similar to having any other kind of animal. An individual must clean up after the animal, or odor will be a problem. She stated that a side benefit to having pet chickens is using their waste to fertilize the soil in gardens, producing eggs and using the feathers to make jewelry. Committee member Salas asked Ms. Austin if she had spoken to any of her neighbors about having chickens in her yard in Santa Rosa and Bakersfield. Ms. Austin stated the property in Santa Rosa had substantial land, and the neighbors were at a distance. She indicated she had not contacted any neighbors in Bakersfield. Community Development Director Doug McIsaac stated he had not reviewed the ordinances for the Cities of Santa Rosa and San Diego but emphasized that standards must be in place for the protection of neighbors. He also stated there may be other permitting methods such as the possibility of an administrative use permit, which also allows the public be noticed of a property owner’s proposal and allows for comment. It would still require an administrative review and, among other requirements, the applicant would be required to provide diagrams of how the animals would be kept to determine if all the requirements of the ordinance could be met. Legislative and Litigation Committee Agenda Summary Report September 18, 2012 Page 4 Committee Chair Benham also asked staff to include details on a possible administrative review process when reporting back to the Committee. A. Discussion Regarding Regulation of cats Allowed Per Household – Gennaro City Attorney Ginny Gennaro stated California law does not provide much, if any, regulation of cats. Similar to the state law, the Bakersfield Municipal Code (BMC) does not regulate cats. It is very difficult to keep cats in a designated area, as it is instinctual for cats to roam. Two major issues which would need to be considered in limiting the number of cats a person can own would be; 1) it would require a substantial change to the BMC, and 2) adding more regulation to cats would place a greater strain on the local Animal Control personnel. Committee Chair Benham asked if Code Enforcement would respond to a complaint where there are multiple cats causing a public nuisance and what action could be taken without a cat ordinance. Building Director Burns stated that only minimal action can be done with the current ordinance. He indicated that dogs are kept in a confined area which can be controlled, cats are not. Committee member Sullivan stated the City might consider future ordinance revisions to include the regulation of cats. She cited an example of a constituent who has issues with a neighbor having numerous cats which roam throughout the neighborhood. City Attorney Gennaro stated she would like to further pursue the matter with Code Enforcement, as it appears there are additional public nuisances and public health safety concerns in that particular matter. She stated she would also review the process with the County as part of the new partnership between the City and County. 5. COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:31 cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council TO: FROM: • • BAKERSFIELD Community Development Department Douglas N. Mcisaac, Director MEMORANDUM October 12, 2012 Legislative and Litigation Committee Sue Benham, Chair Jacquie Sullivan Rudy Salas, Jr. Douglas Mcisaac, Community Development Director~ SUBJECT: Keeping of Chickens in Single-Family Residential Zones This item was previously discussed by the Legislative and Litigation Committee on September 18, 2012. The information presented to the Committee at that time stated that Bakersfield allows the keeping of chickens in three zoning districts, which are those that allow farming or other agricultural uses. Otherwise, the Bakersfield Municipal Code currently prohibits the keeping of chickens (and other types of poultry and fowl) (BMC Sec. 6.08.01 0). SURVEY OF OTHER CITIES In order to gain a better idea of how other cities address the issue of keeping chickens in "standard" single-family residential zones, a survey was conducted of ten other comparable cities in California. As shown below, the results were fairly evenly split. Five cities permit the keeping of chickens in single-family zones, and five do not, although it is noted that one city (Glendale) requires that chickens are kept more than 300 feet from a neighboring residence, which would preclude the large majority of R-1 lots. Legislative and Litigation Committee October 12, 2012 -Page 2 City Fremont Fresno Glendale Modesto Ontario Oxnard Pasadena Riverside San Bernardino Stockton Chickens Allowed in R-1 No No Yes* Yes No Yes Yes No Yes No * Must be kept more than 300 ft. away from other residences. ANALYSIS lfYes, Max. No. Allowed 12 12 25 10 24 Staff is aware that there has been somewhat of a recent trend toward allowing chickens and other forms of "urban farming" in residential areas. However, staff is concerned that the potential negative impacts associated with chicken keeping are of greater consequence and significance to the community in general. Noise An individual chicken may not by itself be considered a "noisy animal." A large number of chickens kept together, however, have to potential to create noise of a sufficient level and consistency to be an irritant to those exposed, especially in a single-family residential area where peace and quiet is very important and valued. Roosters, in particular, are well-known for producing objectionable noise. Most cities that allow chickens prohibit roosters. Even if they are prohibited, however, ensuring that no roosters are kept may be problematic. Literature has stated that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to determine the sex of a chick at a young age when they are likely to be bought. The owners may or may not dispose of them in some manner when they are determined to be roosters, but it is a reasonable assumption that code enforcement issues pertaining to noise would occur. Sanitation It has been claimed that if chickens are kept properly they pose no substantial risk to health or sanitation. A major concern in this case, however, is the potential for health and sanitation problems when they are not kept properly. This could be in the form of chickens that are allowed to wander loose and not be kept strictly in a pen or coop, and/or owners who simply fail to provide the proper cleaning and maintenance of chicken enclosures. If Legislative and Litigation Committee October 12, 2012-Page 3 waste and feathers are not properly cleaned and disposed of, there can be issues with odor. Also, chickens may have Salmonella germs in their droppings and on their bodies even though they appear healthy. Again, this can be mitigated with proper handling and maintenance. If this is not provided, however, it can create a significant problem within a relatively dense area such as a single-family neighborhood. Code Enforcement Staff is also concerned with the additional workload that may be placed on an already heavily-burdened Code Enforcement staff. While the keeping of chickens is a relatively simple and minor activity in itself, for the reasons cited above, it carries with it a very disproportionate potential for the generation of problems and complaints. These problems can be even further exacerbated by the fact of dealing with live animals. Both the owners of the chickens and the neighbors who may be offended are likely to become very emotional about the issue, with code enforcement left to attempt to mediate between the parties. As a reinforcement of this point, staff sent out a query to other cities that permit chickens through its association with the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers (CACEO). Of those cities that responded to the question "do you receive complaints," 23 cities responded "yes" and only one city responded "no." Two cities added to their response with the terms "constantly" and "all the time." SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION After conducting further research and analysis, staff is of the opinion that allowing chickens to be kept in single-family residential neighborhoods would not be the most beneficial action to take for the good of the greater community. As stated, staff believes there would be a very definite potential for an increase in related problems, issues, and complaints that would be disproportional to the benefits. It also has the potential to add cost and burden to Code Enforcement and Planning staffs where those resources could be better utilized elsewhere. In the event that the Committee would still like to consider allowing chickens in the R-1 zone, staff can explore a review process that would be similar to an existing process in the zoning ordinance related to animal raising in our rural residential zones (R-S); this process allows an additional animal to be raised for the purpose of a 4-H or FFA project, or for selling at the County Fair. In addition to a plot plan that shows separation of the animal pen from neighboring homes, the applicant must also provide written approval from all adjacent property owners before the request can be approved by the Planning Director. Legislative and Litigation Committee October 12, 2012-Page 4 If we were to use a similar process for chickens, the applicant would provide a plot plan of the coop location, number of chickens, and submit written acceptance by the neighboring residents that the raising of chickens was acceptable; at a minimum, this written acceptance would include all adjacent residents, but considering the potential noise and odor issues, staff will need to examine if this approval should be provided from a larger area (i.e. 100-300 foot radius). If there is 100% neighbor acceptance and all other regulations adopted by the City were met, then the Planning Director could allow without a public hearing. By placing the burden on the applicant to obtain consent from their neighbors and not holding a public hearing, it is anticipated a fee for the review would be much less than the current $2,100 for a conditional use permit. Staff would also explore a fee to cover the cost for reviewing the proposal for ordinance compliance, and ensuring that all impacted neighbors have been identified and have provided written consent. In conclusion, peace, quiet, and quality of life issues are of paramount concern and importance within single-family neighborhoods. Staff believes the City's interests would be best served by acting to protect those concerns and ensure a peaceful living environment to the maximum extent feasible. Name Ja.:s ~ ; ck o.r J :::;:.. er LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE MONDAY, OCTOBER 22,2012 ATTENDANCE LIST Organization Contact: Phone/ E-mail c:Ao ~ ~1 2.-( CJ>\b 3(o'3E) ~b I 61'1 /1 }tf 8--d-.596 ~I q( qL{?fo 5' Cflf'J{pS 00\-52-q-~8:~ t-J~ If It I( If ~s 31~ -13b ~ /],lc( I f ttU 321 --7Z'I CJso ) z.'-36Z.g- NJBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Legislative and Litigation Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date I o)z'2-/ 1:2-- You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is not listed on the Committee Agenda. All other statements will be allowed at the time the Committee addresses the item. No action will be taken on any item not on the Agenda; this Committee will gather information and report back to the City Council. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The r'"'rnmittee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Name: Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: Subject: Councilmember Sue Benham cPDS ~Is~ S-t ... Fax /e-mail: fOuJI'~ h MOM€ (pl< · rr. WM . PUBLIC STATEMENTS SPEAKER'S CARD Legislative and Litigation Committee of the City Council Committee Meeting Date \ Q -2.:2--l2- You are invited to address the Committee under Public Statements on any subject that is not listed on the Committee Agenda. All other statements will be allowed at the time the Committee addresses the item. No action will be taken on any item not on the Agenda; this Committee will gather information and report back to the City Council. Public statements are limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Committee may, by simple majority vote, waive the time limit. Please fill out a Speaker's Card and present it to the Committee Chair: Name: Company/ Organization: Address: Phone: Subject: Councilmember Sue Benham S"'5o2 Tv.d.J ~ Cf-1>?1tj-- fRt.o l -58'9 -fa <iS 2£ Fax /e-mail: At\'0\,t.{\~ ch,~ \'(\. u'!) \'\m\ts Media Notification for Legislative and Litigation Committee Meeting Monday, October 22, 2012