RPVCCA_SR_2010_01_05_10_Exotic_Animal_Code_AmendmentCITY OF
MEMORANDUM
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
HONORABLE MAYOR &CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
JOEL ROJAS,AICP,~.zt?R OF PLANNING,
BUILDING AND CODE EN~RCEMENT
JANUARY 5,2010
PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2009-00314 (CODE AMEND-
MENT INITIATION REQUEST).,;.A REQUEST TO
CONSIDER INITIATING A CODE AMENDMENT TO
REVISE THE CITY'S EXOTIC ANIMAL KEEPING
REGULATIONS
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER 09-
Kit Fox,Associate Planner @
RECOMMENDATION
Unless otherwise directed by the City Council,receive and file the Staff report and take no
action to initiate a Code Amendment to revise the City's Exotic Animal Permit regulations.
BACKGROUND
On October 6,2009,the City Council considered Staff's report on the history of the City's
exotic animal keeping regulations,with the purpose of deciding whether or not to initiate
revisions to these regulations.The Staff report referred to an ordinance recently adopted by
the City of Longmont,Colorado,regarding the keeping of chickens.The City Council asked
for more information about this ordinance before deciding whether or not to initiate an Exotic
Animal Code Amendment.
Staff presented the information regarding the Longmont,Colorado ordinance and program
for the City Council's consideration at the October 20,2009,City Council meeting,but the
matter was continued to November 17,2009.On November 10,2009,the item was pulled
from the November 17,2009,agenda and re-scheduled for tonight's meeting.Interested
parties have been advised of this date change via e-mail.
10-1
MEMORANDUM:Code Amendment Initiation Request (Case No.ZON2009-00314)
January 5,2010
Page 2
DISCUSSION
As discussed briefly in the October 6,2009,Staff report,the City of Longmont,Colorado
adopted an ordinance earlier this year that limits the number of chickens to four (4);
prohibits roosters,chicken slaughtering and the keeping of any other kind of poultry or
wildfowl;and establishes development standards for the size,height and location of
chicken coops on a property (see attachments).As originally adopted,the ordinance
provided for the issuance of no more than fifty (50)so-called "Backyard Chicken Hen
Permits.,,1 However,by June of this year,all fifty (50)permits had been issued and there
was a waiting list of twenty-two (22)permit applicants.The Longmont City Council
subsequently amended the ordinance to allow the wait-listed applicants to obtain permits,
and instituted an "amnesty"program to allow other property owners who could "reasonably
demonstrate that they were keeping chickens prior to February 1,[2009,]'to obtain permits
by July 17,2009.Finally,it should be noted that the Longmont ordinance "sunsets"on
December 31,2010,after which permit holders will be required to "amortize"their non-
permitted chickens "either by sale,adoption,donation to [a]4-H Club,donation to a raptor
rehabilitation program,or through euthanasia."
The genesis of the current ordinance was a neighborhood dispute that escalated into a
Code Enforcement case.In 2008,roughly two-thirds (%)of the thirty (30)chicken-related
complaints received by the City of Longmont were related to the keeping of roosters,which
have since been outlawed by the current ordinance.The current ordinance was developed
over a long series of public meetings and faced a small but vocal group of opponents.It
appears that it was at least partially for this reason that the ordinance was designed to
"sunset"at the end of 201 O.At this time,the City of Longmont has not determined exactly
how it will deal with enforcing the removal of non-permitted chickens once the trial permit
period expires at the end of December 2010.However,City of Longmont Planning Staff
have indicated that a status report on the ordinance may be presented to the City Council
prior to its expiration,potentially giving the Longmont City Council the opportunity to extend
the ordinance-either indefinitely or for another finite period-if it appears that the current
permit system is functioning effectively.
While the approval of two (2)recent Exotic Animal Permit (EAP)applications for the
keeping of a pig and four (4)chickens has generated some neighborhood opposition,Staff
believes that the situation in Longmont,Colorado is substantially different from the situation
in Rancho Palos Verdes,where there have only been eight (8)permits for the keeping of
exotic animals acted upon by the City since 1975.Furthermore,while the Longmont,
Colorado ordinance contains regulations that would help minimize the impacts of chickens
in residential neighborhoods,the City's current ordinance is written in a manner that would
allow Staff and/or the Planning Commission and City Council to impose the same types of
1 The application fee for this permit is $30.00.
10-2
MEMORANDUM:Code Amendment Initiation Request (Case No.ZON2009-00314)
January 5,2010
Page 3
restrictions on permit applicants,if warranted by public comment and/or Staff concerns.
Specifically,the City's current ordinance allows the Director or appeal body to impose
reasonable conditions upon the issuance of an EAP,such as prohibiting roosters or on-site
slaughtering and/or limiting the number of animals permitted,as well as restricting the
height,location and size of any animal-keeping structures.Making any changes to the
City's current ordinance would require extensive revisions to Section 17.76.110 of the
Development Code,as well as public hearings before both the Planning Commission and
City Council.Therefore,notwithstanding the amount of public comment received regarding
two (2)of the recent,controversial EAP applications-only (1)one of which involved the
keeping of chickens-Staff does not believe that major Development Code revisions are
warranted since these appear to be unusual and isolated incidents.As a result,Staff is
recommending that the City Council take no action to initiate a Code Amendment to revise
the City's EAP regulations.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration:
1.Authorize the initiation of a Code Amendment to enact revisions to the City's Exotic
Animal Permit procedures,via Minute Order.
2.Identify issues for further study by Staff,and continue this matter to an unspecified
date to allow Staff to conduct further study of the issues.
Attachments:
•Chicken-keeping application,Ordinance No.0-2009-05 and June 9,2009,update
from Longmont,Colorado (accessed on-line 10/7/09 (www.ci.longmont.co.us»
•Daily Breeze article regarding possible Exotic Animal Code Amendment (published
10/6/09)
•Additional public correspondence (including Late Correspondence from the 10/6/09
City Council meeting)
•October 6,2009,City Council Staff report (without attachments)
M:\Projects\ZON2009-00314 {Citywide,Exotic Animal Code Amendment)\201 001 05_StaffRpLCC.doc
10-3
CITY OF LONGMONT
PLANNING &DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
385 Kimbark Street,Longmont,CO 80501
Ph 303-551-8330;Fax 30H51-8696
www,d/ongmontco.usjplanning
BACKYARD CHICKEN HEN PERMIT APPLICATION
This form is to apply for a backyard chicken hen permit.Backyard chicken hen permits are required before one can
legally own and keep chicken hens in non-agricultural zoning distncls in the City of Longmont.Chicken hen permits
are one-tiirle and revocable and are SUbject to sunseton Deceirlber 31 ,2010.Permit holders may keep permitted
Chickens for a period of six months following Ihe sunset period in order to properly dispose of their chickens either
by sale,adoption,donation to 4-H GlOb,donation to a rap lor rehabilitation program,or through euthanasia.
Applicant InformatiOn
Name:
Address:
Phone:
Email:
I Fax:
00 you intend on using a coop that was in existence prlorto February 1,2009?
Yes:[=::J NQ:c=J
If yes AND the coop is closer than Six (6')feetto any side and/orrearproperty line,you must provide
written consent from the adjacent property owner($)before a permit will be issued.Ifthe pre-existing coop
is closer than 6'to the property line and adjacent to an alley or right·of-way a written consent from your
neighbor is not necessary.
P:erm~SllbmjttaIRequirements
1.$30,00 permit fee (cash or cheCk payable to "City of Longmont")
2.Plot/sketch plan of property with setback dimension lines and coop size and location
3.Written consent from adjacent neighbor (ifrequired)
Official Use Only
$30.00 Fee Received:Yes CJ No CJ
Permit #:I I
Approved I Denied
Approval Signature I Date
10-4
Regulations for Keeping Backyard Chicken Hens
1.No person may oWn or keep any fowl (except chicken hens),Induding
ducks,quail,g~ese,turkeys,or pigeons,in districts not zoned Agricultural.
2.No more than four (4)chicken hens are permitted per parcel.
r---.-------:-------:-----------!3.No person may own or keep a rooster in any distri.ct not zoned
Ag riOJ Itur al.
4.Chicken hens are to be restricted to the rear or backyard of any lot in a
residential zoning district or the rear or backyard ofa residential use in all
other zoning districts.
5.No slaughtering allowed.
6.Chicken feed must be stored in a re-sealable,airtight,metal,rat-prooF
container,as required by Longmont Municipal Code §9-16-130 to
discourage attracting mice,rats,and other vermin,
7.Coops shall be predator pro.oF with a solid top.
8.Water shall be provided at all times.
9.Coops and associated runs shall be limited in size to a maximum of 120
square feet.
10.At least Four (4)square feet of space per chicken shall be provided
(includes coop and run).
11.Coops shall be no taller than seven (7)feet althe hig hest point ofthe
rooF.
12.Coops are not to be located between the rear of the structure and the
front yard lot line.
0.Coops shall be at least six (6)feet from anyother structure and at least
siX (6)feet trom any side or rear property line,except that any coop in
existence as of February 1,2009,shall be el/(empt from this set-back
requirement,provided such coop meets the requiremements of this
subsection,and provided further that the owner of s.uch existing coop obtain
the agreement of any neighbor whose property abuts SUch existing coop,If
the.pre-existing coop is closer than 6'to the property line and is adjacent to
an alley or right-oF-way a written consent from your neighbor is not
necessary.
14.All coops shall be regtliarly cleaned to control dust,odor,and Vilaste and
not constitute a nuisance,saFety hazard,orhealth problem to surrounding
properties.
15.A city permit is required for all chicken hen coops and no morethan 50
shaH be permitted between March 2009 al'1dDl!cember 31,20W.
16.A permit may be revoked upon the conviction of the permit holder of a
violation of section 7.04 of the Longmont Municipal Code.
Backyard chicken hens lI'e permitted on a trial bii$is.Permits may be rescinded by City
Council at the end of the trial period whieh concludes on December 31,2010.
Many Home OWner Association Bylaws do not allow chickens or poultry of any kind.
Applicants should check lh elr HOA bylaws to conffnn that chicken hens are permitted.
Applicant Certific:ation
I hereby cerlify lhal the information and exhibits herewith s·ubmilledare true and correct 10 the best of my knowledge.
In submitting the application materals and signing this application.I acknOWledge andagreelhatlhe applicatbn is
subiectto all the terms and conditions for a Backyard Chicken Hen Permit found in Tille 7.04 of the City of Longmont
Municipal Code.I undersland that any false statements or omissions may resutt in denial or revocation of this permi!.1
further acknooledge that I have read Ihe applicable regulations attached to this permit and agree 10 fully comply with
the regulalbns set forlh by the City of Longmont any terms and conditions imposed by the decision making body as
they relate to the Backyard Chicken Hen Permit.
Applicant Signature:I Date:
10-5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ORDINANCE 0-20092009-05
A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7.04 ANIMALS OF THE
LONGMONT MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING BACKYARD CHICKEN HENS
THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LONGMONT,COLORADO,ORDAINS:
Section 1
Section 7.04.130.paragraph A only,of the Longmont Municipal Code be amended by
adding italicized material to read as follows:
7.04.130 Prohibited keeping of animals.
A It is unlawful to keep,harbor,care for or possess any animal within
the city except:
1 Household pets;
2.Large animals and livestock,as applicable zoning ordinances
permit;
3 Birds of prey in the possession of handlers licensed by the state or
federal government;or
4.Colorado wildlife receiving care and treatment by a wildlife
rehabilitator currently licensed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife.
~_._Bactr<rr..d chicken hens,
f!..._....._Other ...P....9J.l.J!ry...or fQ_W1P.I.Q..Qi.QiteQ.-'-......NQ...Q~rson nJ1!Y .._m·:Y.1LQI...k~_f!fl.Y
other fowl,including ducks,quail,geese,turkeys,or pigeons,in districts not
zoned Agricultural.
b.No more than four (4)chicken hens are permitted per parcel.
I\MCC-APP-OJIConlentlinputlnewordsIJ454210_2009_05Jdoc 6118/093:43 PM
10-6
c.JiQ.~!§.!~I",'L.Prohibited.N.~U2~r.SO!lJ.n.~..Q.YYIL9r keep a,.Iooster ill any
di§.tr i CtJ1Q.t,zo:Lled 8,.Zrlf..\J.1llImL.
d.Backyard chicken hens are restricted to the rear or backyard of any
lot in a residential zoning district or the rear or backyard of a residential use in all
other zoning districts.
ii._._--!2:.oviQ.~.water at alLmnes.
__-=11"",1.Are limited to a maximum of 120 J?quareJeet Lillclude§
coop space and chicken run).
iv.Provide at least four (4)square feet of space per chicken for
the chicken coop and nm.
vi.Be no taller than seven (7)feet at the highest point of the
vii.Not be located between the rear of the strncture and the
front yard lot line.
viii._Be aJ 1e~&t six (6)feet from .!;!.!lY other structure and at leasj;
six (6)feet from 'ill.Y...§i<l.~_Qr re1!.L12IQp.~I.tr.li.l}e,except that any coop in existence
as of February 1,2009,shall be exempt from this set-back requirement,provided
such coop meets the requirements of this subsection,and provided further that the
owner of such existing coop obtain the agreement of any neighbor whose property
abuts such existing coop.
All backyard chicken hen coops shall meet the followinge.
requirements:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2
\IMCC-APP-OIlContenl\inputlnewords\14542\O_2009_05Jdoc 6/18/093:43 PM
10-7
1
2
3 surrounding properties.
4
5
g.
h.
No slaughtering allowed.
Chicken feed must be stored in a re-sealable,airtight,metal,rat-
6
7
proof container,as required by §9-16-130 of this code,to discourage attracting
mice,rats,and other vel111in.
8 i.A city permit is required for an chiyken hen C(0)2§.and no more
9 than 50 permits shan be issued by the city.
10 j.The fee for a chicken hen coop is $30.00.
11
12
__--=ko:...._---'A'""'-J:p""'e""'rm=it may be revoked upon the conviction of the permit holder
of a violation of this section.
13 1.Following any expiration of this subsection 5,permit holders shall
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
have a period of six (6)months to remove any chicken hens they have on their
property at the time of such expiration.
Section 2
After the effective date of this ordinance,the City Manager shall review the merits and
impacts of this ordinance and submit a written report regarding the same to City Council upon
the conclusion ofa trial period ending on December 31,2010.
Section 3
To the extent only that they conflict with this ordinance,the Council repeals any
conflicting ordinances or parts of ordinances.The provisions of this ordinance are severable,and
invalidity of any part shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the rest of this ordinance.
Introduced this 10th day of February,2009.
Passed and adopted this day 01',2009.
3
I\MCC-APP-OJIContentlinpullnewordsI1454210_2009_05Jdo<:6118/093:43 PM
10-8
1
2
3
4
5
6 ATTEST:
MAYOR
NOTICE:THE COUNCIL WILL HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ORDINANCE AT
7:00 P.M.ON THE 24th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2009,IN THE LONGMONT COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s/James W.Rourke
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
/s/Janet J.Sorenson
PROOFREAD
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
/s/Phil DelVecchio
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT
CA File:7830
4
\\MCC-APP-Ol \Conlent\input\newords\14542\O_2009_05Jdoc 6/18/093:43 PM
02/11/2009
DATE
02/11/2009
DATE
02/11/2009
DATE
10-9
CHICKEN UPDATE June 9,2009
On June 9th City Council amended the backyard chicken ordinance so that 22 individuals
on a waiting list could be issued a chicken hen permit.The amendment to the ordinance
will also enable individuals that were keeping chickens prior to February 1,2009 without
a permit to be issued a permit as long as the permit is pulled by July 1i h and if they can
reasonably demonstrate that they were keeping chickens prior to February 1.For those
individuals that were keeping chickens prior to February 1,a written letter from an
adjacent property owner with their name and address,along with photographs of the
chicken(s)and coop shall be deemed adequate evidence.
Please print out the Chicken Hen Permit Application by clicking on the link in the main
Back Yard Chickens page before this update.Read all of the rules for keeping chickens,
and fill out the required information.Lastly,sign and date the application.Please submit
your permit with a plot plan of your property and be certain to denote the size of your
coop on your plan.When you come in to get your permit,you will be informed as to
whether your coop's placement and size is consistent with the regulations.
The City will begin issuing the second round of permits on Monday,June 22,2009 at the
Development Services Center located at 385 Kimbark Street.If you are one of the 22
individuals on the waiting list,you are guaranteed a permit,so there's no need to rush.
For all others,amnesty for chickens kept prior to February 1,2009 ends on July 17 so be
certain to make this deadline if you want permits for your chickens.
10-10
Exotic animals on RPV agenda Tuesday -The Daily Breeze
Exotic animals on RPV
agenda Tuesday
From staff reports
Posted:10106/200909:01:56 AM PDT
Rancho Palos Verdes.Following controversy over
two households intent on keeping their beloved
potbellied pigs as pets,the City Council Tuesday
night will reconsider its policy on exotic animal
permits,which cost $1,030 each.Urban chicken-
keeping,which also requires a permit,has
likewise been a hot topic recently.
The meeting begins at 7 at Fred Hesse
Community Park,29301 Hawthorne Blvd.
Advertisement
Print Powered By
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_13496729
Page 1 of 1
10/6/200910-11
Michael Feygin
30822 Via Rivera,Rancho PV,CA 90275
CHICKEN COOP
RECE\VED
Del 022009
plANNING,BUILDING AND
CODe ENfORCEMENT
September 3D,2009
Recently I obtained a conditional permit from the City of Palos Verdes to build a chicken coop for four
chickens in my backyard.Along with my new vegetable garden I intend to use the coop for creating a
sustainable living environment for myself and my family.I also want to use it as an educational tool for
my son and his Chadwick school friends.
Since,like many of us,I do not have the experience of deali~g with city bureaucracy,obtaining the
permit was quite difficult for me.I had to fill out numerous forms and produce plans for my project.
Obtaining the permit exposed me to the inner workings of the PV city government.Overall it has been a
positive experience.As a small city government it represents the democratic ideals of America.Having
grown in Russia I have always been fascinated by the government of the people,by the people and for
the people.Back in myoId country it was an unattainable dream.
As the government "ofthe people",the PV city council represents our collective ideals of positive living.
Through the city laws,it imposes regulations on our conduct in order to create harmonious relationships
among us as neighbors.However,in this process it should strike the right balance and not become an
oppressive force.When we help to create these laws,we should think about what kind of environment
we would like to live in and how far we should be able to intrude into lives of each other.
For example,do we want to allow our neighbors to dictate what kind of landscaping we do on our back
yard?One of my upstairs neighbors feels free to photograph my back yard and provide comments to
me and others on the amount of weeds and its neatness.Should we be free to lean over each other's
fences and photograph our neighbors backyards?If you want to have a dog,can you have two dogs?
Are three dogs too many?What about domestic birds such as canaries or parrots,for example?I
believe that when we create regulations governing our conduct,we should limit their number and
scope.After all,99%of what we do in our backyards should be our own business.
Most importantly,we must have a rational government.For example,our neighbors in PV Estates allow
ownership of horses.However,we have smaller lots.Therefore,our city government decided not to
allow horse ownership in our city.This is rational.If for example I decided to create a chicken farm or
buy a rooster,I would understand the rig~t and the need of the city to intervene.However,I believe
that the amount of disturbance that a properly constructed chicken coop containing four chickens will
create for my neighbors will not be any worse than children,dogs or domestic birds freely living in many
other houses in PV.This is rational too.
I would like to thank my neighbors for their participation in this spirited debate.If the decision of the
city council went against me,I would willingly accept it.After all this is not the most important issue of
my life.However,I am thankful for the balanced and wise approach exercised in this debate by the city
council.This has been an excellent lesson in democracy.
/of I
10-12
From:
ent:
lo:
Cc:
SUbject:
Importance:
=
Raj Dhami [rdhami@dartentities.com]
Monday,October 05,2009 11 :58 AM
clark@rpv.com;cityclerk@rpv.com;citymanager@rpv.com;kendyda@rpv.com;
douglas.stern@rpv.com;tom.long@rpv.com;stevew@rpv.com;'Paul Christman';'Greg Pfost';
'Joel Rojas'
Manjri Dhami;Raj Dhami
City Council Meeting Agenda Item-Amendment for Exotic Animal Keeping
High
Dear Sirs:
As we understand that you are planning to take up the topic of Exotic Animal keeping on the SFR property in
RPV.We would like make the following suggestion,not knowing what exactly you will be discussing in the
meeting:.
~Please do not permit any MORE SFR residences within the RPV to keep any kind of exotic animals on
the property.We love animals.Animals,however,either belong in the rural areas or the zoos.Not in
the beautiful,serene,and scenic residential area like RPV.
II)RPV is a very desirable community to live for the families and lets not devalue it by allowing more SFR
residences to keep the animals on the property. Lets keep the valuation of the property high by
maintaining high standards.
~You may want to Grandfather in the permits you have already issued to the SFRs within RPV.
e Please keep a tight control over the maintenance and safekeeping of the animals to ensure that it
does not pose any health or environmental hazards to the citizens of the RPV.
o Please,please do not liberalize the existing limits on the number of animals and the type of animals to
be kept on the SFR property.
You all are citizens or residents of RPV and you will understand our rationale for suggesting above thoughts.
We appreciate all the work you all do to maintain the RPV as one of the most desirable cities in the USA to live
and raise family.Lets keep it that way.
Thank you for allow us to express our opinion.
Have a great meeting.
Manjri and Raj Ohami
30819 Rue De La Pierre,
RPV,90275
1 /3
10-13
s:'rom:
ent:
ro:
Cc:
Subject:
!"
Raj Ohami [rdhami@dartentities.com]
Monday.October 05.2009 11 :38 AM
Daniel Pitts
'Joel Rojas':'Greg Pfosf;'Paul Christman';stevew@rpv.com;tom.Jong@rpv.com;
douglas.stern@rpv.com;kendyda@rpv.com;citymanager@rpv.com;cityclerk@rpv.com;
binduv@rpv.com
RE:Construction Going on at the SFR 30822 Via Rivera.RPV
Dear Mr.Pitts:
Thank you very much for taking time out from your busy schedule to visit subject site and determine the status
of the activities going at the site.We are very happy to learn that the site owners are not doing any
unauthorized construction that may obstruct our beautiful ocean view.
Thanks again for your quick inspection and putting our frazzled mind at ease.
Have a great day.
Raj Dhami
Project Managerllndustrial Engineering
DART Logistics Services
E:RDhami@DARTEntities.Com
T:323-981-8222
C:323-327-8030
F:323..264-6925
",\.
,.,.':"---Orlginal Message-----
.Fo)m:
Sent:
.to:-
tel:
SUbject:
Raj Dham!,
Daniel Pitts [mailto:danielp@rpv.com]
.Friday,October 02,20092:4B-PM ,...
~~rdtiami@Cfjrtent.lties.com -n~._'_...:"p '.0 -'.~.•_.PO _.,._."•'•
'JoeI.Rb.la~'.Greg Pfost';'Paul Cl1riSlman';5teVt!W@rpv.com;tbm.long@rpv.comiC!9ug!as.stem@i'pv.colTi;l<endyda@rpv.com;
dtymanager@rpv.com;dtyderk@rpv.com;binduv@rpv.com ,...
RE:construction Going on at the SFR 30822 Via RIvera,RPV
Good afternoon.
Per your concerns communicated to the City this morning regarding the construction activities located at 30822 Via
Rivera,please be adVised the Building Official and myself conducted a joint site visit
of this location In reference at 1:30 PM this afternoon.Based on our observations and inspection efforts,only a
plumbing permit for the sprinklers would be required at this time.
The posts that are currently being erected are to support a wall /fence that appears to not be retaining dirt,and
appears to be under six feet in height.
Therefore,no other permits would be reqUired at this time.
If you should have further questions or comments please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (310)544-5228
Thank you for your concern in this matter.
Daniel Pitts
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
1 'Of 3 /3.
10-14
Code Enforcement Officer (cceo)
from:Paul Christman [mailto:PauIC@rpv.com]
sent:Friday,October 02,20091:51 PM
To:danielp@rpv.com
Subject:FW:Construction Going on at the SFR 30822 Via Rivera,RPV
Importance:High
from:Raj Dhami [mallto:rdhami@dartentities.com]<mailto:Cmallto:rdham!@dartentities.com]>
sent:Friday,October 02,200912:53 PM
To:
dark@rpv.comCc<mailto:c1ark@rpv.comCc>:Raj Dhami;stevew@rpv.com <mailto:stevew@rpv.com>;
tom.!ong@rpY.com <mallto:tom.long@rpy,com>;douglas.stern@rpY.com <mailto:douglas.stern@rpv.com>;
kendyda@rpv.com <mallto:kendyda@rpv.com>;citymanager@rpY.com <mailto:cltymanager@rpv.com>;
cityclerk@rpY.com <mailto:cityclerk@rpv.com>;planning@rpy.com <mallto:planning@rpv.com>;
buildingsafety@rpv.comSubject <mallto:bulidingsafet;y@rpv.comSubject>:FW:Construction Going on at
the SFR 30822 Via Rivera,RPV
Importance:High
Respected Mayor:
Please be advised that my wife,Manjri Dhami,dropped off the photos of the construction activities g.oing
on at 30822 Via Rivera property at about noon on Friday,October 2,2009.The photos were given to Mr.
Daniel Pitts and he informed my wife that he would pass on the photos to Ms.Julie Peterson on Monday,
October 5,2009.
If you have any questions,please do not hesitate to call us at 310-541-2050.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Raj Dhami
----Original Message----
from:Raj Dhami [mailto:rdhami@dartentities,coml <mailto:[mailto:rdhami@dartentities.com]>
Sent:Friday,October 02,2009 12:04 PM
To:dark@r:py.com <mailto:c1aris@rov,com>
eel buildlnasafely@r:py.com <mailto:bulldingsafety@r:py.com>;p1annjng@r:py.com <mailto:plannlng@r:pv.com>;citvderk@rov.com
<mailto:cityclerk@roy.com>;dtymanager@r:py.com <mallto:cltymanager@r:pv.com>;kendyda@rpv.com <mailto:kendyda@rov.com>;
douglas.stern@rov.com <mailto:douglas,stem@rpy.com>;tom.long@rov.com <mailto:tom.long@rpv.com>;stevew@rov.com
<mailto:steveW@r:py.com>
Subject:Construction Going on at the SFR 30822 Via Rivera,RPV
Importance:High
Respected Mayor:
This is to advise you,council members,and the City Planning Director Mr.Joel Rojas of the following
activity at the SFR located on 30822 Via Rivera,RPV:
2 'Of 3
10-15
~You have just authorized the owner of the SFR at 30822 Via Rivera property to maintain the 4
chickens after the fact in spite of the protest by the neighbors living within 500 feet of the subject
property.
119 Although you indicated in your report that noise made by the chickens is not bothersome and is
at a very low decibel level.Please be advised we are able to hear the chickens in the
middle of the night and it is annoying and wakes us up from our sound sleep.
•We are one of the neighbors who protested and we live at 30819 Rue De La Pierre.Our property
is right above the subject property.We (husband and wife)are listed as Rajendra K Dharni and
Manjri R Dhami as the owner of the 30819 Rue De La Pierre property.
o I just received a frantic telephone call at work (about an hour ago)from my wife advising me
that there is some construction activity going in the backyard of the 30822 Via Rivera.
III The owners of the subject property (30822 Via Rivera)were very upset and started
shouting at my wife when she tried to take some photos of the activity.
We are of the opinion that the owners of the subject property are constructing something without a proper
Building Permit.It appears that they are embolden by the fact they were given permission by the City to
retain the 4 chickens which were kept without any proper permit and they are looking to get away with
whatever they are doing in the similar manner.
We humbly request your immediate attention to the matter and investigate as to what is going on at 30822
Via Rivera without any delay.
We understand that you are going to take up the matter of reviewing the existing rules and regulations for
the maintenance of the exotic animals in the City in your next meeting on October 6,2009.We firmly
believe and strongly suggest you as our guardian of the City must restrict keeping of the exotic animals on
the SFR property located within RPV.We are not against the animals and we love animals.However,the
exotic animals do not belong in the urban environment.They belong in the rural areas.Lets keep RPV an
truly serene and nice area to live.
Please take an action immediately and stop the construction activity going on at the subject property if it is
unauthorized.
We will sincerely appreciate all the work you all do the citizens of the RPV.We thank you for your
assistance and coopE!lration.
Sincerely,
Raj Dhami
3 of'3
10-16
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Page 1 of2
Kit Fox
Raj Dhami [rdhami@dartentities.com]
Friday,October 09,20099:28 AM
Kit Fox
joelr@rpv.com;'Greg Pfost';'So Kim';'Leza Mikhail';Daniel Pitts;'Julie Peterson';'bruce
donaldson';Manjri Dhami
SUbject:RE:Continued City Council Discussion of Possible Exotic Animal Permit Code Amendment
Importance:High
Dear Mr.Fox:
Thank you for advising us of the continued discussions by the City Council Members about the
Exotic Animal Permit Code Amendment.
We understand and appreciate that the council members and the city planners would want to
review and consider the ordinance in place in cities across the country.We,however,sincerely
hope and strongly suggest that the council members make their own independent decision
based on unique location and geography of the RPV,its beautiful ocean views,and serenity.
We have visited Longmont,Colorado few years back and it is qUite different from RPV in terms
of geography.It is very close to the mountain area and it has a very rural area feeling.Their
property lot sizes are larger than ours and homes are far separated from each other.
RPV is unique in many different ways from Longmont,Colorado and other cities across the
country.Lets be independent and bold to make our own rules and regulations based on our
own environment,prevailing conditions,and circumstances.Why do we have to follow some
other cities?We are different and that is why most of the RPV citizens have decided to make
their home in the city.Lets not be a follower.Lets be a leader like we always have been.
Thank you again for keeping us informed of the progress of your deliberations for the subject
item.
Sincerely,
Raj Dhami
-----Original Message-----
From:Kit Fox [mailto:kitf@rpv.com]
sent:Wednesday,October 07,20092:27 PM
To:'bruce donaldson';'Christina Thacker';'Allison E.Butler';'Doug Maupin';'Michael Feygln';
rdhami@dartentitles.com
Cc:joelr@rpv.com;'Greg Pfost';'So Kim';'Leza Mikhail';Daniel Pitts;'Julie Peterson'
Subject:Continued City Council Discussion of Possible Exotic Animal Permit Code Amendment
Dear Interested Party:
As a follow-up to the City Council's discussion at last night's meeting,this matter will be before the City
Council again on Tuesday,October 20,2009.As requested by the City Council,Staff will be prOViding
additional information about an ordinance adopted by the City of Longmont,Colorado that deals with
chicken-keeping.The City Council will meet at 7:00 PM at Hesse Park Community Center,29301
Hawthorne Blvd.,Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275.The Staff report for this item will be posted on the
10113/2009 10-17
City's website by the end of the week of October 12th .
Please feel free to contact me if you have any further questions or comments.
Sincerely,
Kit Fox,AICP
Associate Planner
City of Rancho Palos Verdes
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes,CA 90275
T:(31O)544-5228
F:(310)544-5293
E:k.ilf@mY,,-com
10/13/2009
Page 2 of2
10-18
CrrYOF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MEMORANDUM
COUNCIL MEMBERS
C OF PLANNING,
EMENT
HONORABLE MAYOR
JOEL ROJAS,AICP
BUILDING AND COD E
OCTOBER 6,2009
PLANNING CASE NO.ZON2009-00314 (CODE AMEND-
MENT INITIATION REQUESTl;.A REQUEST TO
CONSIDER INITIATING A CODE AMENDMENT TO
REVISE THE CITY'S EXOTIC ANIMAL KEEPING
REGULATIONS
CAROLYN LEHR,CITY MANAGER oSL-
Kit Fox,AICP,Associate Planner @
REVIEWED:
Project Manager:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TO:
FROM:
RECOMMENDATION
Receive the Staff report and provide direction as deemed appropriate.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In response to recent public concerns about the issuance of Exotic Animal Permits,on
August 4,2009,Mayor Pro Tem Wolowicz asked the City Council to consider possible
amendments to the City's regulation of the keeping of exotic animals at future City Council
meeting.Staff has prepared a report summarizing the history of the City's regulation of
exotic animal keeping,and seeks direction from the City Council on the possible initiation of
an Exotic Animal Code Amendment.
BACKGROUND
On August 4,2009,Mayor Pro Tem Wolowicz asked for an item to be added to a future
City Council agenda to discuss the City's regulation of the keeping of exotic animals.Staff
surmises that this request was in response to the recent after-the-fact requests for the
keeping of one (1)pot-belly pig and four (4)chickens at two (2)different single-family
10-19
MEMORANDUM:Code Amendment Initiation Request (Case No.ZON2009-00314)
October 6,2009
Page 2
residences in the City.Therefore,this matter was scheduled by Staff for the City Council's
consideration at tonight's meeting.
DISCUSSION
History of Exotic Animal Keeping Regulations in the City
Regulations for the keeping of "wild and large domestic animals"were first codified in
Sections 9165 and 9166 ofthe City's 1975 Development Code (Ordinance No.75-78)with
the establishment of a process of the issuance of "Special Animal Permits."The Special
Animal Permit (SAP)process originally involved providing 1O-day public notice to property
owners within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.If no written protests to the
issuance of an SAP were received in response to this notice,the Director of Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement had the authority to approve the SAP,"subject to
appropriate conditions,if any."In the event that written protests were received by the City,
the SAP application was to be agendized for the Planning Commission's consideration at a
public hearing.RPVMC Section 9166-E delineated the specific findings that the Planning
Commission was to consider in granting or denying an SAP,to wit:
o That the requested animal or animals,at the location proposed,will
not jeopardize,endanger,or otherwise be detrimental to the public
health,safety,or general welfare;and
o That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the animal or animals requested without material
detriment to the use,enjoyment,or valuation of property of other
persons located in the vicinity of the site,and the keeping of animals
as requested is an appropriate use of the site;and
That any other variance from the terms or requirements of this
Ordinance will not be materially detrimental to the use,enjoyment,or
valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity and will
not jeopardize,endanger,or otherwise be detrimental to the public
health,safety,or general welfare.
The Planning Commission's decision was appealable to the City Council after a 10-day
appeal period.Once an SAP was approved,it was to be valid indefinitely (unless a shorter
period was specified in the conditions of approval)and recorded to the title of the subject
property.
In 1977,RPVMC Section 9166 was revised (Ordinance No.90).All SAP applications
became Director-level permits,rather than being automatically referred to the Planning
Commission on the basis of written protests.The Director's decision was then appealable
to the Planning Commission.In addition,the public notice and appeal periods for SAPs
10-20
MEMORANDUM:Code Amendment Initiation Request (Case No.ZON2009-00314)
October 6,2009
Page 3
were extended from ten (10)days to fifteen (15)days.Some time in the late 1970s or
early 1980s,the City's Municipal Code was re-numbered such that RPVMC Sections 9165
and 9166 became RPVMC Sections 17.12.060 and 17.12.070,respectively.In 1983,
RPVMC Section 17.12.060(8)was revised (Ordinance No.175)to include a reference to
the definition of the term "wild animal"that was then codified in RPVMC Section 6.04.230
(this Section has apparently since been repealed from the City's Municipal Code).
The last revisions to the City's regulations for the keeping of wild and large domestic
animals occurred in conjunction with the Development Code update in 1997 (Ordinance
No.320).In 1997,the former SAP process was effectively "split"into the "Large Domestic
Animal Permit"process codified in RPVMC 17.46.040 and 17.46.050,and the "Exotic
Animal Permit"process codified in RPVMC 17.76.110.An Exotic Animal Permit (EAP)is
required for the keeping of any "wild animals ...or other domestic animals not specifically
authorized elsewhere"in the Municipal Code.This would exclude the keeping of large
domestic animals (Le.,horses,sheep,goats and cows)as permitted pursuant to RPVMC
Sections 17.46.040 and 17.46.050;and the "keeping of animals customarily referred to as
household pets and small domestic animals"and/or up to five (5)bee hives for
noncommercial purposes,which are permitted "by right"in single-family neighborhoods
(RPVMC Section 17.02.020).Since 1997,it has been Staff's practice to require the
issuance of an EAP for the keeping of any animal on any property in the City that does not
fall into one of the above-mentioned categories.With the exception of the omission of
references to large domestic animals,the EAP process currently codified in RPVMC
Section 17.76.110 is substantially the same as the SAP process formerly codified as
RPVMC Sections 17.12.060 and 17.12.070.The number of required findings for the
approval of an EAP was reduced from three (3)to two (2),and they were revised and re-
worded,to wit.
•That the permit,if issued,will not be detrimental to the pUblic health,
safety or general welfare;and
19 That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the proposed use without material detriment to the use,
enjoyment or valuation of properties in the vicinity of the site,and that
the requested use is an appropriate use of the site.
EAPs remain Director-level permits that are appealable to the Planning Commission within
a 15-day appeal period.
Summary of Past and Current Applications for the Keeping of Exotic Animals
The table below summarizes the disposition of applications for the keeping of exotic
animals in the City since 1975.Excluded from this table are SAPs that were issued for the
keeping of large domestic animals (i.e.,horses,sheep,goats and cows)before 1997.
10-21
MEMORANDUM:Code Amendment Initiation Request (Case No.ZON2009·00314)
October 6,2009
Page 4
Table 1:Applications for the Keeping of Exotic Animals since 1975
Permit No.Description Address Q Action Action
District?Date
SAP 15 1 serval (African 28328 Palos Verdes Dr.E.Yes Denied 12/13/85wildcat)
3 goats,2 pigs,5
EAP 1 ducks &19 chick-6610 Palos Verdes Dr.S.No Approved 5/13/98
ens
EAP2 8 chickens 3224 Deluna Dr.No Withdrawn 10/30101
ZON2002-00296 4 parrots & 1 ma-1985 Avd.Feliciano No Denied 3/6/03caw
ZON2003-00603 20 chickens & 2 12 Martingale Dr.Yes Approved 1/27/04geese
ZON2008-00589 1 pot-belly pig 5824 Ironwood St.No Approved 5/26/09
ZON2009-00 154 4 chickens 30822 Via Rivera No Approved 9/9/09
ZON2009-00184 6 chickens 27879 Palos Verdes Dr.E.Yes Approved 7/22/09
ZON2009-00286 1 pot-belly piQ 26222 Barkstone Dr.No Approved 8/27/09
Of the eight (8)permits acted upon by the City for the keeping of exotic animals since
1975,six (6)of these permits have been approved.In terms ofthe location of the permits
acted upon the by City,five (5)have been for properties located outside of the City's fOl,Jr
(4)Equestrian Overlay (Q)Districts.As noted in the table above,permits forthe keeping of
exotic animals have most commonly been sought for the keeping of chickens or other
wildfowl,with pigs being the second-most-frequently requested exotic animal.
Of the two (2)permits that were denied by the City,SAP 15 was primarily denied due to
public safety concerns,while Case No.ZON2002-00296 was primarily denied because the
proposed aviary also required a Variance due to its encroachment into the setback areas of
the property.The one (1)permit that was withdrawn (EAP 2)was a Code Enforcement
case where it appears that the chickens were removed from the property after the
application was filed.
Possible Amendments to Exotic Animal Keeping Regulations
Notwithstanding two (2)of the most recent EAP applications (Le.,Case Nos.ZON2008-
00589 and ZON2009-00154),most such past applications have been approved without
much public controversy.As such,Staff believes that these recent instances may be
anomalies rather than harbingers of a future wave of similar applications.For example,in
the same neighborhood and less than five hundred feet «500')from where the Planning
Commission approved (on appeal)the keeping of a pot-belly pig (Case No.ZON2008-
00589)on May 26,2009,another application for the keeping of a pot-belly pig (Case
No.ZON2009-00286)generated no public comment and was approved by the Director
without appeal on August 27,2009.In addition,despite the recent "flurry"of EAP
10-22
MEMORANDUM:Code Amendment Initiation Request (Case No.ZON2009 a 00314)
October 6,2009
Page 5
applications,Staff has found that they typically have only been sporadically submitted to
the City since 1975.Nevertheless,the City Council may wish to consider specific
amendments to the EAP process to address community concerns,such as:
\I)Establish more restrictive development standards for the issuance of an EAP,such
as requiring greater setbacks from abutting homes or a minimum lot-size
requirement;and/or,
Limit the issuance of EAPs to properties located within the City's 'Q'Districts,which
already permit the keeping of certain numbers of large domestic animals (i.e.,
horses,goats and sheep)on developed properties "by right";and/or,
\I)Require EAPs to be reviewed by the Planning Commission rather than the Director.
In addition to these possible amendments,Staff has identified a minor correction to RPVDC
Section 17.76.110{A)to correct an obsolete Municipal Code reference to the definition of
"exotic animals."Staff believes that this minor correction could easily be included within the
scope of the on-going Residential Development Standards Code Amendment and Zone
Change (Planning Case No.ZON2007-00377)that is currently under review by the Planning
Commission,and does not require the initiation of a separate Code Amendment.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion,Staff requests direction from the City Council whether or not it desires to
initiate a Code Amendment to revise the City's regulations for the keeping of exotic animals.
As discussed above,Staff has identified a minor correction to RPVDC Section 17.76.11 O(A)
to correct an obsolete Municipal Code reference to the definition of "exotic animals,"but Staff
believes that this minor correction could easily be included within the scope of the on-going
Residential Development Standards Code Amendment and Zone Change (Planning Case
No.ZON2007-00377).More extensive revisions to RPVDC Section 17.76.110 would clearly
require a separate Code Amendment.Notwithstanding the amount of public comment
received regarding two (2)of the recently-processed EAP applications,Staff does not believe
that major revisions to RPVDC Section 17.76.110 are warranted since these appear to be
unusual and isolated incidents.Therefore,Staff seeks direction from the City Council
regarding the initiation of a Code Amendment to enact revisions to the City's Exotic Animal
Permit procedures.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
National Trends in Urban Chicken Keeping
As reflected in the attached article from the current edition of Planning magazine,other
cities are grappling with the issue of chicken keeping in non-rural areas.This trend
appears to be related to both the current economic downturn and to a desire by some
10-23
MEMORANDUM:Code Amendment Initiation Request (Case No.ZON2009-00314)
October 6,2009
Page 6
urban residents to achieve a "greener,"more sustainable Iifestyle.1 The article focuses on
a recently-adopted ordinance in Longmont,Colorado,that limits the number of chickens to
four (4);prohibits roosters and chicken slaughtering;and establishes development
standards for the size,height and location of chicken coops on a property.Also,on
September 23,2009,the Los Angeles Times reported that the City of Los Angeles has
enacted an ordinance limiting the keeping of roosters (see attachments),although the main
purpose of this ordinance appears to be controlling cockfighting.
Next Steps
If the City Council authorizesthe initiation of a Code Amendment,Staffwill begin preparing
the Code Amendment for presentation to the Planning Commission for its consideration
and recommendation,and to the City Council for adoption.Staff anticipates that this
process could be complete by early next year.
Public Notification
No public notification is required for a Code Amendment Initiation Request.However,as a
courtesy,the applicants and other interested parties for the most recent EAP applications
submitted to the City have been advised of the City Council's consideration of this matter.
If initiated,a Code Amendment would be reviewed at duly-noticed public hearings before
the Planning Commission and City Council.
CEQA Compliance
If initiated,the environmental effects of the Code Amendment would be assessed in
compliance with CEQA.However,no CEQA review is required for this Code Amendment
Initiation Request since it is not a "project"as defined by CEQA.
FISCAL IMPACT
Since this would be a City Council-initiated Code Amendment,the costs associated with its
preparation and future presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council would be
borne by the City's General Fund.The Code Amendment and related environmental
analysis would be prepared by in-house Planning Staff,so there would be no direct fiscal
impact to the City if the Code Amendment is initiated.However,Staff estimates that the
preparation of this Code Amendment and related environmental analysis-including public
hearings before both the Planning Commission and City Council-would require
approximately forty (40)hours of Staff time.It should be noted thatthe costs associated with
1 It should be noted that the application for the EAP for six (6)chickens on Palos Verdes Drive East
that was approved this past July stated that the purpose of that application was to provide the homeowner with
fresh,organic eggs.
10-24
MEMORANDUM:Code Amendment Initiation Request (Case No.ZON2009..(0314)
October 6,2009
Page 7
processing of any future EAPs would continue to be fully recovered by the City's EAP
application fee,which is $1,030 under the City's most recently~adopted fee schedule.
ALTERNATIVES
The following alternatives are available for the City Council's consideration:
1.Authorize the initiation of a Code Amendment to enact revisions to the City's Exotic
Animal Permit procedures,via Minute Order.
2.Do not authorize the initiation of a Code Amendment to enact revisions to the City's
Exotic Animal Permit procedures,via Minute Order.
Attachments:
..Original RPVMC 9165 and 9166 (Special Animal Permit)
•Ordinance No.90
•Ordinance No.175
..Former RPVMC 17.12.060 and 17.12.070 (Special Animal Permit)
•Current RPVMC 17.76.11o'(ExoticAnimal Pern1it)
•Daily Breeze article regarding pot~belly pigs (published August 14,2009)
..Planning article regarding urban chicken keeping (August/September 2009)
•Los Angeles Times article regarding roosters (published September 23,2009)
•Courtesy notice to interested parties (dated September 17,2009)
..Public correspondence
M:\Projects\zON2009-00314 (Citywide.Exotic Animal Code Amendment)\20091006_StaffRpCCC.doc
10-25