Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/26/2012 Staff: City Council Members: Rhonda Smiley, Assistant to the City Manager Sue Benham, Chair Jacquie Sullivan Rudy Salas Special Meeting of the Legislative and Litigation Committee of the City Council – City of Bakersfield Monday, November 26, 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 OCTOBER 22, 2012 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3.PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4.DEFERRED BUSINESS A.Discussion Regarding Ownership of Chickens in Urban Residential Zones – McIsaac / 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 Regular Meeting of the LEGISLATIVE AND LITIGATION COMMITTEE Monday, October 22, 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 Jacquie Sullivan Councilmember Rudy Salas Staff Present: Rhonda Smiley, Asst. to the City Manager Ginny Gennaro, City Attorney Steven Teglia, Asst. to the City Manager Andrew Heglund, Deputy City Attorney Chris Huot, Administrative Analyst Richard Iger, Associate Attorney Doug McIsaac, Community Development Director Jim Eggert, Planning Director Phil Burns, Building Director Others Present: Antonie Boessenkool, Bakersfield Californian Hannah Austin, Bakersfield Citizen Erin McConkey, Bakersfield Citizen Brandy Vencel, Bakersfield Citizen Bob Snoddy, Bakersfield Citizen Everett Vencel, Bakersfield Citizen Jenine Snoddy, Bakersfield Citizen Avery Vencel, Bakersfield Citizen Linda Snoddy, Bakersfield Citizen Quinnlyn Vencel, Bakersfield Citizen Kimbrah Gonzalez, Bakersfield Citizen Owen Vencel, Bakersfield Citizen Jason Cater, Bike Bakersfield 2.ADOPT SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted Legislative and Litigation Committee Meeting Monday, October 22, 2012 Agenda Summary Report Page 2 3.PUBLIC STATEMENTS None 4.DEFERRED BUSINESS A.Discussion Regarding Ownership of Chickens in Urban Residential Zones – McIsaac / Eggert / Gennaro Community Development Director Doug McIsaac stated five out of ten comparable cities surveyed, allow chickens and other forms of urban farming in residential areas and the remaining cities do not. The total number of allowable chickens per residence varies in range from 2 to 50. Mr. McIsaac stated there is an existing process in the zoning ordinance related to animal raising in rural residential zones which requires an applicant to submit a plot plan showing separation of the animal pen from neighboring homes and provide written approval from all adjacent property owners. The request would then be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The existing model could be used to create a similar process for chickens in residential zones. Committee Chair Sue Benham inquired as to the amount of the fee for such a process. Planning Director Jim Eggert stated the existing process is limited to agricultural or residential suburban zone areas, and there is currently no fee. Community Director McIsaac also stated that correspondence was received on the matter. A total of 11 letters were received; three letters of support and eight in opposition to the matter. Bakersfield resident Linda Snoddy stated she drives 20 miles one way to care for the chickens she raises. She stated hens make very little noise compared to barking dogs or cats fighting. Chicken waste can also be used as fertilizer, and chickens are less likely to contract diseases from wild birds as they are confined. Bakersfield Resident Kimbrah Gonzalez stated research shows more diseases can be spread through dogs and cats then from chickens. She compared the noise level of a hen laying an egg to that of a human conversation. Ms. Gonzalez also stated that the amount of waste created by an average cat or dog is equivalent to the waste matter of ten chickens. Up to a maximum of three, dogs, cats, goats, and pot-bellied pigs, are all allowed in residential zones and they all contribute to attracting more pests and odors compared to keeping chickens in a coop in a backyard. Committee member Rudy Salas asked if goats and pot-bellied pigs are allowed in residential zones and if the individuals need to acquire a special permit. Legislative and Litigation Committee Meeting Monday, October 22, 2012 Agenda Summary Report Page 3 Planning Director Eggert stated pygmy goats and Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs are allowed in residential areas as pets. No special permit or process is necessary. Committee member Salas asked staff to explain the most significant health and safety concern of allowing chickens in residential zones. Community Development Director McIsaac stated that Salmonella germs could be found in chicken waste and on their bodies. In addition, allowing chickens at single family residences could have significant impact on all residents in neighborhoods where chickens are allowed. Committee member Jacquie Sullivan stated that restrictions, such as limiting the number of allowable chickens and restricting the distance they are kept from other residences could possibly make it feasible for families wanting to have chickens. Committee Chair Benham requested that the City Attorney draft an ordinance that would allow chickens in residential zones, using the City of Santa Rosa’s ordinance as an example, where chickens could be kept by right. Committee members Salas and Sullivan requested the City Attorney draft an additional ordinance whereby individuals would be required to acquire a permit. This would allow a review of the individual residence, and additional restrictions, if needed, could be imposed. City Attorney Gennaro stated that any ordinance accepted by the Committee would have to be presented to the full Council and then heard by the Planning Commission, as it would require changes to residential zones. After review by the Planning Commission, it would be presented to the full Council again for the first and second reading, followed by the 30 day waiting period for the ordinance to take effect. 5.COMMITTEE COMMENTS None 6.ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:31 cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council B A K E R S F I E L D Community Development Department Douglas N. McIsaac, Director M E M O R A N D U M November 21, 2012 TO: Legislative and Litigation Committee Sue Benham, Chair Jacquie Sullivan Rudy Salas, Jr. FROM: Douglas McIsaac, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Keeping of Chickens in Single-Family Residential Areas This matter was previously considered by the Legislative and Litigation Committee at its meetings of September 11, 2012 and October 22, 2012. At the October 22nd meeting, the Committee gave direction to staff to prepare two versions of potential ordinance language that would allow for the keeping of chickens in single-family residential areas. One version would be to allow the keeping of chickens “by right,” meaning that chickens would be allowed subject to only certain established requirements and regulations. The second version would allow chickens subject to approval by the Planning Director. The details of these two options are included in a separate memo from the City Attorney’s office. In presenting this information to the Committee, staff would continue to assert its position that the practice of keeping chickens in an urban environment brings with it the potential for adverse impacts and incompatible conditions. Because of this, staff continues to recommend that no changes be made to the City’s current regulations that limit the keeping of chickens to agricultural and residential suburban zones. Staff’s concern is rooted in the fact that experience from Bakersfield and other cities indicates that problems and complaints associated with chicken keeping have and do occur. By allowing chickens to be kept on a more widespread basis, the problems and complaints would stand to become greater. Staff is of the opinion that the use of the City’s Legislative and Litigation Committee November 20, 2012 – Page 2 limited resources to deal with these problems would be more constructively utilized in other ways. In 2011, City Code Enforcement handled a total of 36 cases related to keeping of chickens, 32 of which were in response to citizen complaints. To date in 2012, the number of code enforcement cases has risen to 52, of which 38 have been in response to citizen complaints. The large majority of these cases and complaints have been in single-family residential areas where chicken-keeping is currently not legal. Should the practice become legal and more widespread, it is reasonable to anticipate that the number of complaints will increase even further. The previous memo to the Committee identified potential issues regarding noise, sanitation, and impacts on code enforcement. The attached versions of the draft code language attempt to address some of these issues by limiting the number of chickens allowed to three, prohibiting the keeping of roosters, and establishing set back and separation requirements for coops and pens. But even with these regulations, there will be certain owners that will go beyond the set limits, whether it might be keeping more than three chickens, keeping a rooster, not properly maintaining the coop or pen, or allowing chickens to roam in the yard instead of keeping them constantly cooped. In fact, based on the complaints received and evidence that has been gathered, issues often arise by owners failing to observe the types of regulations being proposed. Roosters are a common complaint, primarily because of noise. Many people who have backyard chickens acquire them as chicks. The error rate of determining the sex of baby chicks is as high as 25 percent, meaning that persons who thought they were buying a female chicken as a chick at times find they have a male rooster upon its maturity. As disposal of a male rooster may not be simple, the owners will often keep the rooster. Another common problem is that of chickens that are allowed to roam freely, even though it is proposed that they be required to be cooped at all times. Testimony has been given as to how chickens help to control insects and fertilize lawns and gardens as they roam yards. Others have testified to treating chickens more as pets than strictly a source for raising eggs. Allowing chickens to roam freely increases the potential for noise and sanitation complaints. Also, as is the case with any kind of stock animal that is kept in multiple numbers, is the fact that keeping the enclosures clean and sanitary is labor intensive. Particularly when dealing with casual owners, there will typically be a certain portion of such owners that will not maintain the enclosures properly on a consistent basis. Regardless of the possible extent and magnitude of any problems is the fact that chickens are typically regarded as farm animals and the public is not generally accustomed to having them (or living next to them) in an urban setting. Some evidence to this is seen in the attached messages that have been received on the issue. The City has received a total of 16 e-mail messages or phone calls – six which indicate support for the keeping of chickens and ten of which are opposed. Of those that are opposed, there is a definite opinion that Legislative and Litigation Committee November 20, 2012 – Page 3 apart from any problems themselves, that the keeping of chickens is not compatible within single-family areas. The number of messages that the City has already received in opposition (almost two to one opposed) is also an indicator that a substantial number of complaints would occur if chicken keeping were to be allowed, particularly if no approval process was included (as in Option A). With these observations noted, staff is presenting the Committee with two options for draft language to allow chickens to be kept as directed. As identified in the attached memo, Option A would allow chickens to be kept “by right,” subject to certain regulations. Under Option A, no approval or permit would be required. While the same regulations would apply, the City would not be able to know which properties were legally keeping chickens, or have any record that it was being done in a manner compliant with the ordinance requirements. Option B allows chickens to be kept under the same set of regulations as provided for in Option A, with the added requirement that persons wishing to keep chickens would first be required to submit an application to the Planning Director along with a plan indicating how the chickens would be kept in a compliant manner. In addition, and very importantly, Option B would require the applicant to obtain and submit written consent from the residents of all adjacent properties, as well as the consent of the subject property owner if different from the applicant. For all of the reasons discussed above, however, staff recommends making no change to further allow chicken keeping in the City. Staff believes that the disfavor and dissatisfaction that this would be met with by the majority of residents, as well as the drain on limited resources to respond to issues and complaints outweighs the comparative benefits. Attachment: List of Citizen Comments Chickens Public Comments Updated: 21-Nov-12 ___________________________________________ Page 1 Date Citizen Method of Contact 09.19.12 Jerry Pearson, Sr.e-mail 10.24.12 09.19.12 Stephen West e-mail 09.19.12 Harry Bentley phone 09.19.12 Jim Ellis e-mail 09.20.12 Vicky Knight phone 09.20.12 Hal Williams phone 09.20.12 Deborah Barnett e-mail 10.22.12 Sheila Roth phone 10.29.12 Charles and Kathy Hawks phone Date Citizen Method of Contact 09.22.12 Irene Faulkner e-mail 09.26.12 Erin McConkey e-mail 10.22.12 09.27.12 Jeanine Snoddy Phone 10.22.12 e-mail 10.22.12 Shannon Parks e-mail 10.26.12 Amy Moss-Russell e-mail 11.02.12 Mark Russell e-mail Total – in Support 6 Total – in Opposition 10 Support Opposed DOCUMENTS HANDED OUT AT THE COMMITTEE MEETING