Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutO.B. 01 ROOSTERS 05-04-92OLD BUS tiLSS NO. 1 5-4-92 Ll .r- Y 902-.1 t tu Inter -Com DATE: MAY 41 1992 TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ROOSTERS RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the City Council. BACKGROUND The Tustin City Council, at a regular meeting on March 2, 1992, received a petition signed by forty-six (46) residents from the "Old Town" residential area of the City asking that the Tustin City Code be amended to permit roosters in the City. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the issue and to report back to the City Council with a recommendation. On March 23, 1992, the Planning Commission reviewed a variety of policy options in response to the requests of residents for a code amendment to permit roosters within a portion of the City (see Attachment 1, Planning Commission staff report). Staff will be available to review each of these options at the City Council's May 4th meeting. The Planning Commission also reviewed information supplied by the City's noise consultant (Attachment 2). According to the noise consultant, the level of noise produced by crowing can be as high as 60 dBA at 300 feet from the source. This exceeds the noise standard permitted in the residential districts by 5 dBA during the day and 10 dBA at night. (The maximum noise level permitted in a residential district between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 o.r,,. is 55 dBA and between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is 50 dBA.) Upon conclusion of their discussion, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the existing City Code prohibiting roosters be maintained and instructed staff to continue enforcement. A copy of the Planning Commission minutes is included as Attachment 3. The Commission basically concluded that it would be unfair to residents who do not like the sound of rooster crowing to be subjected to the noise regardless of the character that the roosters lend the Old Town residential area. The Planning Commission also felt that options provided in the staff report describing possible restrictions that could be placed on minimum lot size and distance of roosters from residential structures would not necessarily make rooster crowing less of a nuisance. City Council Report Roosters May 4, 1992 Page 2 Additional letters were made available to the Planning Commission at their meeting on March 23rd which are included as Attachment 4. The Community Development Department recently received additional correspondence on the rooster issue from Jeff Thompson on April 28th (Attachment 5). In his correspondence, he suggests a possible additional solution would be to require coop roosting areas to be fully enclosed with solid construction material; suggesting that this would restrict light and therefore dampen crowing. An additional correspondence is attached as Attachment 6 providing additional information of certain objections to roosters being permitted in the City. Staff would be prepared to provide any support to the City Council as requested on this issue including preparation of any necessary ordinance modifications for future consideration by the City Council. * 9%r Becky Stone Christine A. Shingleto Assistant Planner Assistant City Manage BCS: rvn/ roosters Attachments: 1 - Planning Commission Report 2 - Noise Study Report 3 - Planning Commission Minutes, March 23, 1992 4 - Letters received for Planning Commission discussion of March 23, 1992 5 - Jeff Thompson letter dated April 27, 1992 6 - Additional correspondence opposing roosters dated April 28, 1992 ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT MARCH 23, 1992 ITEM #6 LATE: MARCH 231 1992 Inter -Com W's,� TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ROOSTERS RECOMMENDATION Pleasure of the Planning Commission. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION The Tustin City Council at a regular meeting on March 2, 1992, received a petition (Attachment A) signed by forty-six (46) residents from the "old town" residential area of the city asking that the Tustin City Municipal Code be amended to permit roosters in the City. The City Council directed the Planning Commission to recommend options to the City Council regarding a potential code amendment. The purpose of this report is to provide the Planning Commission with information regarding the possible regulation of roosters within the City. Currently, roosters are prohibited by Section 4221 of the Tustin City Code. This section of the Code also prohibits maintaining more than ten (10) birds, fowl, hamsters, etc., on any single parcel of property in the City. In addition, the maintenance of any bird and other animals is restricted in the city of Tustin as specified in Section 4221 (Attachment B). Animals are also prohibited from becoming nuisances as described in Section 4224 (Attachment B). The Tustin Community Development DepaVtment has recently received complaints about crowing roosters in the Old Town residential area. The complaining parties charge that the offending roosters normally begin to crow at about 3:00 a.m. and continue throughout the day. Contrary to the popular notion that roosters crow to announce daybreak, the Orange County Agricultural Center's Area Poultry Farm Advisor says that a rooster's crowing is a secondary sexual characteristic controlled by hormones. Since hens ovulate approximately every 24 to 27 hours depending on the day length, it is natural, then, that a rooster will crow on a daily basis in an effort to encourage hens to mate, regardless of the time of day. However, the Area Poultry Farm Advisor also says that a hen's fertility is affected by light. Therefore, roosters are also Planning Commission Report Roosters March 23, 1992 Page 2 sensitive to light and will react to a light source as seemingly insignificant as a porch light or a headlight by crowing. According to the Area Poultry Farm Advisor, roosters are instinctively territorial and naturally compete with one another. It is not beneficial to keep many roosters together since they will fight to protect their territory. Commercial poultry operations keep a maximum of one (1) rooster per six ( 6 ) hens , and may keep as few as one (1) rooster to eleven (11) hens. To determine how other municipalities address potential rooster crowing problems, staff contacted eleven (11) Orange County cities. Staff asked whether these municipalities permit the keeping of roosters, and what restrictions might be included should roosters be permitted. Attachment C shows the results of this survey. Three (3) of the Orange County cities surveyed by staff permit the keeping of roosters with certain restrictions. Brea permits up to 25 poultry and does not permit poultry pens to. be closer than 40 feet from any residence. Garden Grove residents may keep up to two (2) roosters in a pen located at least 200 feet from other residences. San Juan Capistrano permits the keeping of small animals, which would include roosters, with a conditional use permit on lots with a minimum area of 15,000 -square feet. The remaining eight (8) Orange County cities surveyed by staff prohibit the keeping of roosters. Most personnel contacted in these cities believed that the prohibition on roosters was caused by noise complaints. However, City of Santa Ana staff also link the ban on roosters to the sport of cock fighting, which at one time was popular in Santa Ana. While it is not against the state law to keep gaming birds such as roosters, it is illegal in the State of California to encourage roosters to fight and to gamble on a gaming situation. Santa Ana officials determined that the way to stop cock fighting in their city was to ban the keeping of roosters altogether. It is possible that Tustin officials adopted the current prohibition of roosters because of potential noise. While the request of certain Old Town residents to allow roosters in Tustin is not related to a gaming situation, particularly in Old Town, it is possible that, should the City decide to permit the keeping of roosters, cock f ighting in some areas of the City might be encouraged. In addition, if roosters are permitted, staff believes that the City code enforcement staff would continue to receive crowing complaints from area citizens. The petitioners believe that the crowing sound of a rooster adds to the historic nature of the Old Town neighborhood in which the Planning Commission Report Roosters March 23, 1992 Page 3 petitioners reside. However, given the potential noise of a crowing rooster, it is apparent that a conflict may occur in neighborhoods where roosters are kept despite the roosters' place in the City's historic past. Should the City adopt adequate mitigation measures to permit roosters within old Town, the same mitigation measures could apply in other residential districts of the City. The portion of the Code to be amended would be the Animal chapter of the Health and Safety Code, Section 4221. Amendment of the Health and Safety code would apply to all residential districts of the City. The following options have been identified for Planning Commission consideration. Option 1 - No Amendment This option would continue to prohibit the keeping of roosters within the City of Tustin. A recommendation would be made to the City Council that no change to the current regulations would occur. _Option 2 - Recommend Restrictions which Strictly Regglate the Keeping of Roosters The petition submitted by Old Town residents recommends the following potential restrictions: a) limiting the lot size on which roosters can be kept to a minimum of 15,000 square feet, b) containing roosters in a certain confined area, C) limiting 'the confined area to a minimum of 100 feet from any dwelling structures, and d) screening the confined area from the view of neighboring dwelling structures through the use of solid fencing, vegetation, etc. Several of these recommendations may be considered by the Planning Commission as possible restrictions. As previously mentioned, the keeping of poultry and animals is currently restricted with various development standards. Lot size restriction and minimum distance requirement - other cities require a minimum lot size to maintain small animals such as roosters. Staff believes that lot size restriction may not necessarily place any beneficial restrictions on an owner with roosters since a lot may be as narrow as 50 feet within certain areas of the City. Therefore, staff would recommend adopting a minimum lot size in conjunction with a minimum distance which Planning Commission Report Roosters March 23, 1992 Page 4 animals must be maintained from residential structures other than the residence of the rooster owner. The Code currently requires poultry to be kept at a distance of at least fifty (50) feet from any neighboring residence. While this distance of fifty ( 50 ) feet may be adequate to buffer the noise of chickens from nearby residences, it may be necessary tto o the appropriate distance that roosters must be kepto buffer them from neighboring residences. Containment - Currently, the Code requires that fowl must be maintained in a coop should with a suitable runway. This restriction roosters be permitted. However, additional containment is advised to ensure that roosters crowing does not disturb neighbors at night. Since the sound of rooster crowing appears to be most noticeable at nighttime and the early morning hours, it Accordingybepossible to the Area eliminate stimulus that makes roosters crow. Poultry Farm Advisor, if roosters are enclosedri t light t ght is box, which no light can enter,roosters and cost would be required anticipated that additional staff to inspect and enforce the use of such boxes in deamendment-be event t noise complaints continue to be received. Should a co pursued, this option should be further explored and standards developed to ensure that roosters are satisfactorily maintained in a light free environment during certain hours of the night. Screening - Criteria for the screening of roosters would be an important factor in any code amendment permitting the keeping of roosters. If the code amendment is pursued appropriate screening methods should be developed and adopted in conjunction with other restrictions. The City should anticipate, however, adoption of a code amendment to permit the keeping of roosters within the City would potentially result in an increase in the number of roosters in a neighborhood with a subsequent increase in noise complaints. Maximum number of roosters - Since roosters are territorial and will fight to protect one or heir territory, it is not beneficial keep wouldmore than reommend adopting a two roosters together. Therefore, staff maximum number of roosters to be permitted in addition to the restrictions previously discussed. . Restrictingthe amount maximum t ofnu bee of roosters permitted wouldreduce be permitted within the complaints that would arise should rooster City of Tustin. Planning Commission Report Roosters March 23, 1992 Page 5 option 3 - Permit the Keeping of Roosterswith a Conditional Use Permit, Providing a Minimum Lot Area Requirement is Met This option would allow residents with lots of a certain size to apply for a conditional use permit in order to receive authorization to keep roosters. The City of San Juan Capistrano requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 -square feet. While this may be an appropriate minimum lot area for the City of Tustin, further investigation may be necessary. Since conditional use permits require discretionary approval by the Planning Commission, a . public hearing would be held in which all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property would be notified. This process, then, would establish specific requirements (conditions of approval) for the subject property and allow residents in the vicinity to provide input on whether roosters should be permitted. Staff is concerned, however, that this may not be the most economical way with which to proceed in authorizing the keeping of roosters. Should adequate mitigation measures, as previously discussed, be established and adopted in a code amendment, it may not be necessary to establish conditions of approval each time authorization for roosters is requested. Staff does not suggest that the Planning Commission recommend this option to the City Council. option 4 - Permit the Keeping of Devocalized Roosters This option would allow residents to keep roosters within the City limits, provided all roosters be devocalized. Veterinarians have developed a surgical procedure to devocalize roosters. Surgery is conducted under sanitary conditions with a general anesthesia. It has been recommended by the county that only a veterinarian specializing in farm animals conduct this procedure which may cost up to approximately $40.00. Language prohibiting crowing roosters, could be removed from the Code. Devocalized roosters could then be considered under Section 4221(a)(2) of the Tustin City Code which allows the keeping of up to ten (10) birds, fowl, hamsters, etc., and any combinations thereof. Any rooster that has not been devocalized under this option, then would be prohibited under Section 4224(a), prohibiting any person from keeping any animal whose sound or cry disturbs the peace and comfort of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. This option may not satisfy the petitioners, however, since they maintain that the crowing sound of roosters contributes to the historic setting of the neighborhood. Planning Commission Report Roosters March 23, 1992 Page 6 CONCLUSION Allowing roosters within the City of Tustin could result in potential increases in noise complaints. However, measures do exist which may mitigate noise problems caused by crowing roosters should the Planning Commission determine to suggest the adoption of a code amendment to permit roosters in Tustin. Staff suggests that the Planning Commission discuss the options outlined in this report, or any others that may be identified at the meeting and direct staff to further investigate the feasible alternatives, if needed, and develop draft ordinances for consideration. Becky Stone Assistant Planner BCS:nm/roosters Christine A. ShingletAA Assistant City Manag Attachments: A - Petition B - Tustin City Code: Animals and Fowl C - Rooster Survey PETITION The signatures below represent support of a provision of a City Code allowing the existence of roosters as described herein. We recognize that our area is inundated with noise from motorists using the 5 and 55 freeways, overhead aircraft preparing to land at John Wayne Airport, and traffic using collector and arterial streets of 6th and Main Streets. Although these noise generators did not exist when our neighbor was developed, "noise" from crowing roosters existed at that time. We believe that the background sound from a crowing rooster contributes to aesthetics of our *neighborhood in its historical setting. Nonetheless, we believe that certain restrictions for allowing roosters must be adhered to, in order to maintain a proper balance between neighbors. The following suggests conditions where roosters should be allowed to exist, that we are in agreement to: a) Lot sizes of 15,000 square feet or greater. b) They must be contained in certain confined area. c) The confined area must exist a minimum of 100 feet away from any dwelling structures. d) The confined area must be screened from the view of neighboring dwelling structures through the use of solid fencing, vegetation, etc. Signature Name Address -5ARtZN Ca Rorl VJ. KA -4N ;;:T T\,m-n N , CA. . ,y b' �- 570. w ala , f- �►� �. azo �✓• ��r�-��, ���� NG 4X lU m gm us T/ Attachment A PETITION The signatures below represent support of a provision of a City Code allowing the existence of roosters as described herein. We recognize that our area.is inundated with noise from motorists using the 5 and 55 freeways, overhead aircraft preparing to land at John Wayne Airport, and traffic using collector and arterial streets of 6th and Main Streets. Although these noise generators did not exist when our neighbor was developed, "noise" from crowing roosters existed at that time. We believe that the background sound from a crowing rooster contributes to aesthetics of our .neighborhood in its historical setting. Nonetheless, we believe that certain restrictions for allowing roosters must be adhered to, in order to maintain a proper balance between neighbors. The following suggests conditions where roosters should be allowed to exist, that we are in agreement to: a) Lot sizes of 15,000 square feet or greater. b) They must be contained in certain confined area. c) The confined area must exist a minimum of 100 feet away from any dwelling structures. d) The confined area must be screened from the view of neighboring dwelling structures through the use of solid fencing, vegetation, etc. Signature Name Address wGS Mit i LMAI" 32n4c-) - MA-I/I/ 7 QJ--^- YaQ, 7 7Xz-- V � A- S(J -k-� -�> �- `tet 8 OJHIi I /l/iA U. ) S k i-rl U) Fi:WA-AJ 5 IS -Q �; . e 'C �-ree� 9 C 4/3o W. Vv1A-,.j I Ga 11 ► ►� 1 w. M Page 2 PETITION The signatures below represent support of a provision of a City Code allowing the existence of roosters as described herein. We recognize that our area is inundated with noise from motorists using the 5 and 55 freeways, overhead aircraft preparing to land at John Wayne Airport, and traffic using collector and arterial streets of 6th and Main Streets. Although these noise generators did not exist when our neighbor was developed, "noise" from crowing roosters existed at that time. We believe that the background sound from a crowing rooster contributes to aesthetics of our •neighborhood in its historical setting. Nonetheless, we believe that certain restrictions for allowing roosters must be adhered to, in order to maintain a proper balance between neighbors. The following suggests conditions where roosters should be allowed to exist, that we are in agreement to: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 a) Lot sizes of 15,000 square feet or greater. b) They must be contained in certain confined area. c) The confined area must exist a minimum of 100 feet away from any dwelling structures. d) The confined area must be screened from the view of neighboring dwelling structures through :the use of solid fencing, vegetation, etc. Signature Name Address Page 3 PETITION The signatures below represent support of a provision of a City Code allowing the existence of roosters as described herein. We recognize that our area is inundated with. noise from motorists using the 5 and 55 freeways, overhead aircraft preparing to land at John Wayne Airport, and traffic using collector. and arterial streets of 6th and Main Streets. Although these noise generators did not exist when our neighbor was developed, "noise" from crowing roosters existed at that time. We believe that the background sound from a crowing rooster contributes to aesthetics of our -neighborhood in its historical setting. Nonetheless, we believe that certain restrictions for allowing roosters must be adhered to, in order to maintain a proper balance between neighbors. The following suggests conditions where roosters should be allowed to exist, that we are in agreement to: a) Lot sizes of 15,000 square feet or greater. b) They must be contained in certain confined area. c) The confined area must exist a minimum of 100 feet away from any dwelling structures. d) The confined area must be screened from the view of neighboring dwelling structures through the use of solid fencing, vegetation, etc. Signature Name Address w . ko-vH n STI N �'-f U� ' VJ. (� 2 �i 3 4 5 6 s 10 ut -rr� �T i �,1,� 1U. NU4-rtTN�q ?, L I N K �R y � �VS v r4Nle 5 AAk,4,exk Page 4 PETITION The signatures below represent support of a provision of a City Code allowing the existence of roosters as described herein. We recognize that our area is inundated with noise from motorists using the 5 and 55 freeways, overhead aircraft preparing to land at John Wayne Airport, and traffic using collector and arterial streets of 6th and Main Streets. Although these noise generators did not exist when our neighbor was developed, "noise" from crowing roosters existed at that time. We believe that the background sound from a crowing rooster contributes to aesthetics of our .neighborhood in its historical setting. Nonetheless, we believe that certain restrictions for allowing roosters must be adhered to, in order to maintain a proper balance between neighbors. The following suggests conditions where roosters should be allowed to exist, that we are in agreement to: a) Lot sizes of 15,000 square feet or greater. b) They must be contained in certain confined area. c) The confined area must exist a minimum of 100 feet away from any dwelling structures. d) The confined area must be screened from the view of neighboring dwelling structures through -the use of solid fencing, vegetation, etc. Signature Name Address �� f � 1 Ala Nal/e 4 LO 'r., w , co � sal --to s -F 3/ 7 ___ VL��_ Olt� 9/ 10 Page 5 PETITION The signatures below represent support of a provision of a City Code allowing the existence of roosters as described herein. We recognize that our area is inundated with noise from motorists using the 5 and 55 freeways, overhead aircraft preparing to land at John Wayne Airport, and traffic using collector and arterial streets of 6th and Main Streets. Although these noise generators did not exist when our neighbor was developed, "noise" from crowing roosters existed at that time. We believe that the background sound from a crowing rooster contributes to aesthetics of our neighborhood in its historical setting. Nonetheless, we believe that certain restrictions for allowing roosters must be adhered to, in order to maintain a proper balance between neighbors. The following suggests conditions where roosters should be allowed to exist, that we are in agreement to: SianAt a) Lot sizes of 15,000 square feet or greater. b) They must be contained in certain confined area. c) The confined area must exist a minimum of 100 feet away from any dwelling structures. d) The confined area must be screened from the view of neighboring dwelling structures through the use of solid fencing, vegetation, etc. Name 5 6 o tT tv 7 Ffl 0 10 Address 4A.A Sai ,f Mme .sass . P�c % u.oFT4,L; j< TO ST s� aC Page 6 CHAPTER 2 ANIMALS AND FOWL EDITOR'S NOTE: Ord. No. 8269 Sec. 11 adopted May 19, 1980, amended Ch. 2 of Art. 4 to read as herein set out in Sections 4211--4216. Section 4217 was added by Ord. No. 864, adopted Jan. 18, 1982. Prior to amend- ment, Ch. 2 consisted of Part 1, County Code, Sections 4211--4214, and was derived from Ord. No. 698, Secs. 2--5. PART 1 COUNTY CODE 4211 ADOPTION Subject to the particular additions, deletions and amendments hereinafter set forth in this Chapter, the rules, regulations, provisions and conditions of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange: 10 of Division 1 of Title IV; (a) Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 59 61 71 8, 9, (b) Article 1 of Division 1 of Title V; (c) Subsections b, c, fl, g, h, i, and t of Section 5-1-29 and Section 5-1-30 of Article 2 of Division 1 of Title V; (d) Article 3 of Division 1 of Title V; (e) Division 2 of Title V; and (f) Division 3 of Title V; ors of the Coun- and as may be amended from time to time by the Boar=t°hereof as though fully set ty of Orange, California, are adopted and made a pa forth herein as part of the Tustin City Code and the same are hereby established and adopted as the rules, regulations, provisions and conditions to be observed and followed to govern animal control, welfare and license requirements in the City of Tustin. Three (3) full printed copies of thea ovspe if iedkprovisions of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange are ordered on file at the office of the City Clerk of City of Tustin. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 1, 5-19-80) 4212 AMENDMENTS --GENERALLY The following references set forth in the Codified Ordinances of the County of City Code, shall be inter - Orange, referred to ion 4211 of the Tuttin in Sectun- be deemed to mean "City Cot preted as follows: "Board of Supervisors shall "County "unincorporated area of Orange County cil," "County" or of Orange" or shall be deemed to mean "City of Tustin•Ordinances of the County of Orange; 4-1-8 of the Codified (a) Section (b) Section 4-1-10 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange; the County of Orange; (c) Section 4-1-50(e) of the Codified Ordinances of Codified Ordinances oofthe (d) Section theCounty 4-1-70(a) of the 4-1-105(a) of the Codified OrdinancesCountyoofOOrange; (e) Section (f) Section 4-1-158(g) of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange; Orange; (g) Section 4-1-164 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of the County of Orange; (h) Section 4-1-167 of the Codified Ordinances of REV: 1-82 HS -2-3 Attachment B TUSTIN CITY CODE ANIMALS AND FOWL 42121 (i) Section 4-1-168 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange; (j) Section 4-1-176 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange; (k) Section 4-1-180 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange; (1) Section 5-1-29 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange; (m) Section 5-1-30 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange; (n) Section 5-1-41 of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange; (o) Section 5-2-14 of the Codified Ordinances of -the County of Orange. (Ord. No. 826, Sec: 1, 5-19-80) 4213 SAME --PUBLIC PROPERTY Section 4-1-46 of Article 2 of Division 1 of Title V of the Codified Ordinances of Orange County shall be amended to read as follows: No person having charge of any dog, except a blind person with a scout dog, shall permit said dog to be under any circumstances within public school property or on any public park within the City of Tustin. This Section, however does not prohibit the use of dogs on school property for teaching or any other school uses when approved by the school officials. In the event the City Council, by resolution, authorizes dogs to be upon any public park, the provision of this Section shall not be applicable thereto. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 1, 5-19-80) 4214 SAME --ZONING REGULATIONS Title IV, Division 1, Article 62 Section 4-1-94 paragraph 1 of the Codified Ordinances of Orange County which in part reads, "The keeping or maintenance of / such animals shall also conform to the zoning regulations of Orange County," shall be amended to read: The keeping or maintenance of such animals shall also conform to the zoning regulations of the City of Tustin. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 1, 5-19-80) 4215 PENALTIES (a) Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Chapter 29 Arti- cle 4 shall be guilty of an infraction, except; \ (b) Any person who violates any of the provisions of Title V of the Codified Ordinances of the County of Orange as adopted by Chapter 2, Article 4 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 1, 5-19-80) 4216 CONTINUATION OF PRIOR ORDINANCES The repeal of ordinances or parts of ordinances affectuated by the enactment of this Chapter shall not be construed as abating any actions now pending under or by virtue of such ordinances or as discontinuing, abating and modifying or altering any penalty accrued or to accrue or as affecting the liability of any person, firm or corporation or as waiving any right of the municipality under any section or provisions existing at the time of the passage of this chapter. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 1, 5-19-80) REV: 1-82 ' HS -2-4 TUSTIN CITY CODE ANIMALS AND FOWL 4217 4217 FEE SCHEDULE FOR ANIMAL SHELTER AND ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES The fee schedule for animal shelter and animal control services shall be estab- lished by resolution of the City Council as adopted from time to time. (Ord. No. 8643, •1-18-82) REV: 1-82 HS -2-5 TUSTIN CITY CODE ANIMALS AND FOWL 4221 PART II GENERAL REGULATIONS 4221 GENERAL PROHIBITIONS (a) It shall be unlawful to keep, maintain, or cause to be kept or maintained on any single parcel of property the following in the City: (1) More than three (3) dogs or more hsofage, those under three ( 3 ) mo oranycombination there- of. (2) More than ten (10) birds, fowl, hamsters, white rats, mice, squirrels, chipmunks, nonpoisonous snakes, insects, or rabbits or any combina- tions thereof. No roosters or crowing -type birds or fowl are author- ized. (3) Any animal, bird, fowl, insect, serpent, or rodent not permitted under any of the preceding subsections. (4) More than one (1) beehive or colony. No occupied beehive shalt be closer than one hundred (100) feet from any adjacent residential structure or street or highway. (b) No bird, fowl, or rabbit shall be maintained outside a residence any closer than fifty (50) feet from any neighboring residence. (1) Such poultry and animals shall under circumstancesbe astable no epuiitted to run at large, but shall be at all times confined house or coop with an enclosed runway. (2) Such house or coop runway shall at alltimes timesbbe freeaofed in a offensiveean and sanitary condition and shall at all odors. (c) It shall be'unlawf ul to keep animals or fowl for commercial purposes in any residential zone other than the R A District or authorized. Planned Community District (PC). (d) This Section shall not prohibit the keeping of animals in authorized pet shops and kennels. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 1, 5-19-80) 4222 PERMIT REQUIRED FOR LIVESTOCK It shall be unlawful to keep any equine, bovine, swine, sheep or goat within the corporate city limits, except in the R A District and, where authorized by de- velopment guidelines, PC Districts. A use permit shall be required for the keeping of such animals within these districts. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 1, 5-19-80) I 4223 WILD ANIMALS (a) Wild animals defined. The term "wild animal" means and includes any animal, reptile, fowl, or fish which is not naturally tame or gentle but is of a wild nature or disposition or which is known to bcontactvicious withand it, anddangerous which must the health or safety of people who might come in be kept in confinement to be brought within the immediate power of the owner. (b) Wild animals not permitted in the City; exceptions: It is unlawful for any person to keep and maintain any wild animal within the City. This section shall not prohibit the keeping of: (1) Wild animals in a bona fide zoo; REV: 1-82 HS -2-6 e - TUSTIN CITY CODE ANIMALS AND FOWL 4223(b)(2) (2) Wild animals in a bona fide, licensed veterinary hospital for treat- ment; (3) Wild animals in any entertainment establishment provided by condi- tional use permit, specifically providing for such use; (4) Wild animals in a bona fide educational institution for the purpose of instruction, provided such animals are .securely confined and are prop- erly cared for in a manner satisfactory to the Orange County Pound Master; . (5) Any hamster, guinea pig, white rat and or mouse, turtle, salamander, newt, chameleon, kangaroo rat; any nonpoisonous reptile ( not ex- ceeding six ( 6 ) feet in length or three ( 3 ) in number) ; and non- poisonous toad, lizard or spider. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 1, 5-19-80) 4224 ANIMALS NOT TO BECOME NUISANCE; NUISANCES NOT AUTHORIZED BY ARTICLE (a) No person shall keep, maintain, or permit on any lot, parcel of land, or premises under his control, any animal which by sound or cry disturbs the peace and comfort of the inhabitants of the neighborhood or interferes with any person in the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of life and property. (b) Nor, shall any person maintain any animals in such a manner as to cause a breeding of flies or the creation of obnoxious odors, or in any manner which becomes or is a nuisance or health hazard. Nothing in this Article nor compliances with the regulations or conditions provided herein, shall be construed to grant anyone the right to maintain a nuisance. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 11 5-19-80) 4225 DOGS WITHIN PARKS (a) It shall be the responsibility of any person having charge of a dog to remove any dog droppings emanating from their dog and deposited upon a public park, and to dispose of same in a sanitary manner. (b) This Section shall not prevent the City or its lessees from holding public events in which pets participate in City parks. Pets shall be in the control of handlers either by restraint or command at all times. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 1, 5-19-80) 4226 ANIMALS WITHIN PARKS Animals shall not be permitted to run loose or at large in any public park. No r shall any person bring into any public park any animal that constitutes a safety hazard or detriment to the enjoyment of the area by the public. Upon permit from the City Administrator, animals may be brought into public facilities for the purpose of animal shows, Exhibits, fairs, and the like. (Ord. No. 826, Sec. 1, 5-19-80) REV: 1-82 HS -2-7 ROOSTER SURVEY . ORANGE. COUNTY: CITY SURVEYED.: DOES YOUR MUNICIPAL. CODE PERMIT.:IF:SO THE .KEEPING OF ROOSTERS� : YHAT RESTRICTIONS REGUUITE .THE IQrEPING Of Anaheim No N/A Brea Yes, included as poultry May keep up to 25 poultry. May not be located closer than 40 feet from any residence. Fullerton No N/A Garden Grove Yes May keep up to 2 roosters. Must be kept in a pen at all times. At least 200 feet from other residences. Irvine No N/A Laguna Beach No N/A Mission Viejo No N/A Orange No WA San Clemente No N/A San Juan Capistrano Yes, included with small animals Large Estate District, Small Estate and Single Family District: Minimum 15,000 -square foot Lots with C.U.P. Residential Agricultural District: 21h acre minimum lot size. No C.U.P. Use must be accessory to residential use. Santa Ana No N/A Attachment C ATTACHMENT 2 NOISE STUDY J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. JOHN J. VAN HOUTEN, PE, Principal Consultant DAVID L. WIELAND, Principal Engineer ROBERT WOO, Senior Engineer STUART TAY, Associate Engineer March 19, 1992 CITY OF TUSTIN Community Development Department 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, CA 92680 1260 EAST KATELLA AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805 (714) 978-7018 (714) 635-9520 FAX (714) 939-0648 �:.�Qgo Al COM MV v�V Project File 2306-91 Attention: Ms. Chris Shingleton Subject: Annoyance Potential of Roosters in Residential Areas References: 1. "Noise Monitoring in the Kagel Canyon Area, City of Los Angeles;" J. J. Van Houten and Associates, Inc.; February and March 1992 2. "Disturbing the Peace;" State of California Penal Code, Section 415. 3. Model Community Noise Control Ordinance, Office of Noise Con- trol, California Department of Health, April 1977 Dear Chris, As indicated during my telephone conversation with Rita Westfield this date, we have measured the noise produced by roosters. The levels are quite high. They are well above 70 to 75 dB(A) at 50 feet (as high as 60 dBA at 300 feet). (Refer to Reference 1.) These levels are likely to exceed your noise ordinance standards if measured at night, 10:00 pm to 7:00 am, at a nearby neighbor's property (in proximity to the rooster coop). ANNOYANCE CRITERIA In addition to the level of the noise, annoyance is associated with a number of factors (References 2 and 3). In the case of the rooster's "crowing", these are: a) Character of the noise: Objectional to a non -owner who is awakened by the noise. b) Ambient noise: If the receiver lives in a very quiet area, the intrusion is more distinct and evident. 1 c) Proximity of the noise: If next door or within 100 to 300 feet, the level of the intrusion will be well above the background noise. d Zoning: If the receiver is in a residential zone he may expect to be insulated from "farm" -related intrusions. e Number of persons affected: If few people own roosters it may be considered unreasonable to intrude upon many non -owners. Time of day: Intrusion whichoccurs a number of times during the early morning i hours may be a health issue f it awakens people relentlessly. g) Intermittent noise: Noise that is intermittent, such as the roosters crowing, may be the cause of continuing anxiety and annoyance• h Commercial/non-commercial: If the noise is heard in a residential zone and may be perceived to be from another's commercial activity it may cause greater irritation. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that some period of noise monitoring be conducted and a visit made to the areas which may be affected by the roosters. After performing such work, we will be pleased to provide a more quantitative opinion with regard to the noise as it relates to the City's noise ordinance and to the potential annoyance within the community. If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at 714/978-7018. Very truly yours, J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. ,,/, 9 4--- o=hn Van n, P.E. Consulting gi r in Acoustics dw- \1\npo\23009\2306rstr 0 J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc. CM OF TUMN project File 2306-91 ATTACHMENT 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MARCH 23, 1992 Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 8 Commissioner Baker received a consensus from the Commission to retain the property zoned E-4 and to direct staff as outlined by the Director. The Director confirmed the direction to staff to prepare resolutions of denial on the actions; and that this would not be a Public Hearing on April 13, but a Consent Calendar item only. The Commission unanimously concurred to deny the project and directed staff to bring back resolutions of denial for the April 13, 1992 Planning Commission meeting. . OLD BUSINESS: 5. Status Reports Recommendation - Receive and file. Commissioner Weil asked why all graffiti has not been referred to the removal service. The Director replied that the private property owners remove it themselves since the City has a limited palette of colors, and ask for time to complete the jobs. Commissioner Le Jeune asked about the closed items on the code enforcement list; and if the items are filed by property. Staff replied that there will be a separate report with all closed cases in the future; but they are currently on the active list; and affirmed that they are filed by property. Received and filed. NEW BUSINESS: 6. Roosters Recommendation - Pleasure of the Planning Commission. Presentation: Becky Stone, Assistant Planner Commissioner Le Jeune abstained from comment on this issue due to living within 300 feet of said property. Commissioner Weil asked if the ordinance restricting roosters from the area was adopted in 1980. Staff affirmed. The Director stated that the Commission received a supplemental report from Mr. Van Houten, the City's noise consultant, and that additional inquiries could be transmitted to his office. Staff stated that at 50 feet from the rooster locations the noise level could be 70 dBa or less; and at 300 feet could be 60 dBa; and that the planes in the flight path are 64 dBa and a leaf blowing machine would be 70 dBa. Commissioner Weil asked if it would be appropriate to refer this item to the Historical overlay Committee before coming to the Commission. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 9 The Director responded that the Historical overlay Committee responsibilities were defined by an ordinance and they were precluded from land use decisions. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the applicant obtained the roosters prior to 1980. Staff replied that there is no applicant, only a group of petitioners. Commissioner Kasalek asked if the devocalizing of roosters would have an affect on the hens. Staff replied negatively. The Dir es sttaoted that locate roosters; that officers they only notpeering fenc to across fen complaints. Jeff Thompson, 415 W. 6th Street, spoke in support of roosters; complemented staff on their involved and analytical report with an objective review; that this is a pre-existing condition'; that he has only had his hens and roosters for four and one-half years, others have had theirs 50 years; that the video shows a plane at a higher pitch than the roosters; that their setting is different than East Tustin and includes built-in noise buffers. He presented a video tape showing the various noise factors in the area. John Sauers, 515 S. Pacific, stated that .when he purchased his property 30 years ago, he inherited chickens; that he has no problem with the noise from roosters at neighbor's house 100 feet from his house. Ken Erell, 365 W. 6th Street, not opposed to the roosters, stated that he noticed. the noise from planes, freeway traffic, and police chases in the night; that he was surprised that the roosters were an issue; that they must stop conversations for planes, but not roosters; that eliminating roosters from Old Town would-be like • having the Presbyterian Church stop ringing its bells, that it is part of the charm of Old Town; that there are large lots; and that the roosters help to remind them that even though they are in the middle of a re pa p rt pthere of nature that should be allowed to remain and that theyy ar part with their voice boxes intact. Bill Collins, 430 W. Main Street, asked if the numerous complaints were from one person or numerous people; stated that the real noise is the aircraft, which wakens his baby, whereas the roosters do not; that he did not agree with the dBa level of the planes versus the roosters; that the freeway noise occurs night and day; and to suggested a oestudy versus real noise a 24-hour week-loand that roost rs anrhardly sstudy roosterr noise nois be heard at 5:00 a.m. wills Prescott, 230 S. A Street, stated that he would like to have chickens and roosters; that the sound of a crowing rooster is practically silent compared to car alarms, overhead, planes, and pile drivers; and that fertilized eggs are healthier. Rosie Castaneder, 425 W. 6th Street, supported roosters by stating they are good for children; that before she purchased chickens, she was informed that she was allowed 11; however, she did not know she could not have roosters; and that she hates to see the roosters taken away. Planning Commission Minutes March 23, 1992 Page 10 Mr. Thompson stated that he understood the City's position, but asked for an adaptable code for their neighborhood; that the petition represents 95% of the houses on their block; that they created a newsletter that was circulated to proponents and opponents; that the opponents were not present this evening; that they would like to resolve the issue with the complainers. Commissioner Kasalek stated that she drove through the area and noticed that the roosters add a cozy rural affect to the area; but that it would be negligent on the Commission's part to determine it was a problem only for some; that they cannot turn their backs on the complaints; that she is open for discussion of the options, but it would make the staff responsible for code enforcement; and that problems could be created based on lot size. Commission Kasparian stated that they are trying to control the jet noise, but cannot control freeway or traffic noise; that police noise may be for some good; that roosters add to the atmosphere; that even though many are supporting the issue, they must consider the complaints; that open farm land attenuates noise, but not the city; that the current code considers roosters a nuisance; agreed that the staff report was excellent; that he does not see devocalization as an option; that roosters could be a deterrent to future property sales; that this could set a precedent and incidents of complaints would increase; and suggested housing roosters between 8 p.m. and 8 a.m. as an option; otherwise the code should be left as is and should be enforced. commissioner Weil congratulated Thompson on his petition;.stated that roosters have been prohibited since 1980; that the code states that animals will not become a nuisance; that roosters are only necessary to beget chickens, but not for eggs; that she appreciates the effort to preserve the rural way of life, but that these are residential lots, not small farms; that if the law was changed, it might seem to be a good idea to many people; and the health issue should be addressed. Commissioner Baker stated that in the nighttime quiet, boom boxes and freeway construction are noticeable; that additional noise is not needed, and that the Code should remain as is. Commissioner Kasalek stated that housing of roosters overnight would create a massive enforcement issue. Commissioner Kasalek moved Weil seconded to maintain the existing code as it pertains to roosters and instructed staff to continue enforcement. Motion carried 4-0 with Commissioner Le Jeune abstaining. 7. Consideration to Revoke Conditional Use Permit 90-09 (Mobile Recycling) Recommendation - It is recommended that the .Planning Commission recommend to the City Council revocation of Conditional Use Permit 90-09 by adopting Resolution No. 3017, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Commissioner Le Jeune asked if this was the original location and if the basic complaint was that it was now located close to residences. ATTACHMENT 5 JEFF THOMPSON LETTER DATED APRIL 27, 1992 �yMA� April 27 1992 415 W. 6th Street Tustin, California 92680 City of Tustin Dana Ogdon Community Development 15222 Del Amo Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Re: Code Amendment Consideration for Roosters Dear Mr. Ogdon This letter is to follow up our verbal discussions today, regarding the referenced subject matter. Previously, we submitted a petition with approximately 50 signatures, indicating a desire in our area to allow roosters. I also understand that your department has received complaints regarding the existence of roosters. We have undertaken various efforts to find compromising solutions that would allow roosters while addressing the concerns of those that have filed complaints. As you are aware, just attempting to determine the exact problems have been difficult. The City has relatively kept all correspondence confidential. A neighborhood wide newsletter has been circulated on three occasions to recruit both positive and negative concerns: no negative concerns have been raised. Although the petition indicates who the main complainer is (by virtue of those who would not sign), the party has not been open for extensive neighborly discussion. At this point, I believe that the concern is for the crowing at night and not during the day. Thus, I, as well as other neighbors, have tried to explore possible solutions that could provide a mutual compromise. An initial solution was to have minimum lot sizes, coop setbacks from residents, visual screening and certain restraints from roaming about the yard. These restrictions are, in general, similar to those in San Juan Capistrano, Brea, and Garden Grove. In recently trying to extend requirements, another solution would be to require the coop roosting areas to be fully enclosed with solid construction material. This could be done such that air would be sufficiently provided to the animals, yet light would be almost completely restricted and any crowing would be dampened by the structure. Currently, the three coops that I am aware of, do not offer this type of an arrangement. With such a requirement as this, light ( whether it be a porch light, moon light, or early dawn light) would be severely restricted thus removing the prompt Wps 1 \misc\roostlet. I Page 2 Dana Ogdon, Tustin Roosters for the rooster. to crow. In the event the rooster does crow, the noise would be severely dampened especially with the minimum setback requirement. Since roosters and chickens are daytime animals they would not come out of the coop until prompted by light. As a sort of good faith effort, I have initiated effort to enclose my coop roosting area which is about 75% complete. I have discussed this with the other neighbors that have roosters and they have indicated a willingness to cooperate and even initiate construction modifications prior to the next City Council meeting. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 544-3863. Thank you for your consideration on this matter. Sincerely, eff R. Thompson wp51 \misc\roosdet, l ATTACHMENT 6 ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE OPPOSING ROOSTERS DATED APRIL 28, 1992 Christine Shingleton TUSTIN CITY HALL 1522 Del Amo Ave. Tustin, CA. 92680 April 29, 1992 Reference: Roosters- Old Business City Council Meeting -May 4, 1992 Dear Miss Shingleton, We understand that the City Council will be discussing the issue of permitting roosters in the City on May 4th: Again, neither of us will be presenting -our position in person at the meeting. We trust our letter addressed to you on March 19 will be included in the May 2nd presentation to the City Council. We would like to offer some additional comments for City Council consideration. a) - According to testimony at the PC meeting, a statement was made that eggs taste better when fertilized. According to the American Egg Company, there is no evidence that either taste or nutrition are effected. b) Now that the election is over and the proponents have lost the support of Dick Edger and Earl Prescott, they are proposing that coops be built with some sort of sound reducing features. Since the complaints were filed in early September 91, this is the first time this suggestion has been made. Thisposition was presented on a Channel 9 newscast. No guarantee could be offered that each and every night the coops would be secured to avoid li ht etc. Don't for et, when you block out light, you also block our air etc. What if we had a Santa Ana ondition, or worse, a time with extreme heat and high humidity that we sometimes experience in July and August ? Would the rooster owner decide that the coop should be left open during these times ? We suggest this would create an enforcement nightmare. c) The proponents state that Roosters have been in the downtown area for years. We strongly dispute this accusation. The four (4) rooster owners, Mr. Jeff Thompson, Mr. William Collins, Rosie Castaneder and Earl Prescott, are all relatively new residents, having recently (within the last 4 years) moved into the area. There may have been a rooster or two in the area, however we can assure you that there has never been 6 or 7 roosters on three adjoining properties, as was the recent circumstance. d) The proponents have stated to both the media and in the newspapers I be able to keep at least one rooster to control the that they feel they should p 10 hens. We are opposed to having any roosters allowed for the following reasons: 1) Allowing even one rooster allows for fertilized eggs that generate additional roosters, along with hens. If one rooster is allowed, what would prevent someone from having four (4) roosters on one piece of property, as recently was the case ? The city enforcement officer now can respond to someone having even one (1) rooster, however staff would be unable, without the property owners permission, to verify the potential existence of r than one rooster per parcel, should the code be changed. more p 2) If allowed one (1) rooster, someone could purchase a larger rooster, such as a Rhode Island Red, instead of one of the smaller varieties now being used. According to our discussion with the Orange. County Farm Bureau at Cal Poly, a Rhode Island Red, or similar larger species of rooster, can handle many more hens and is significant) louder than smaller roosters. In talking with the noise consultant, their figures of up to 60 Db at 300 feet were based on the smaller rooster, not the Rhode Island Red. 3) Allowing only one (1) rooster violates the cities noise ordinance of 55 db, even at 300 feet. Also the noise consultant stated that under certain conditions the noise from a rooster travels farther, and is louder. We would like to emphasize that the noise level is not the only problem, but the type of noise itself is very annoying and disruptive. e) The question of violation of city's own noise ordinance, by exception, is very disturbing and could lead to a legal challenge. We know of no other circumstance where an exception has been made to a code, by specific area, that violates another codes that applied to the rest of the city. This is just not right. Residents through out the city should have the same code protection. f) Within the Browning Corridor, the prospective homeowners are notified of the problem with the helicopters, partial) because of potential noise impact on residents. Is the homeowner who may want to sll their home going to be required to advise a potential buyer that they live in an area where an exception to an ordinance exists ? I know if we rchased home, and were not advised of the fact that roosters were allowedand t created a problem for me or my family, we would be very upset. Should this code be changed, some consideration to this circumstance should be provided. g) One of the options proposing a 100 ft.requirement for roosters, is insane. 100 feet is approx. 6 or 7 car lengths. That distance is insufficient to offer residents protection. The noise study clearly states that the Db range could be between 75 to 60 at 50 to 300 feet. h) Allowing even one rooster per property creates a problem in that often when one rooster starts, others will start on adjoining pieces of property. Often several are going at once. Other questions we presented in our original correspondence dated March 19, 1992 were not discussed by the Planning Commission and we would like to re-emphasize. What effect would an ordinance change have on 'granny houses' that may want to be built in the future ? Also, what are the boundaries for the code exception ? Do they include properties East of Main on Pacific and Myrtle where 15M sq.ft. lots abound ? Frankly we were surprized the Cityy of Brea allowed roosters, as long as they were 50 feet from residences. We have since discovered that the city has asked the City Council in Brea to adopt, at their 5/5/92 meeting, an ordnance under section 216 (Animals Expressly Prohibited:) that include roosters. This was requested due to resident complaints. We think we have code change. We are Commission, and are position. Sincerely, made a compelling argument against the proposed obviously pleased with the ruling by the Planning very hopeful the City Council wil( uphold their