Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/18/2012 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