HomeMy WebLinkAboutRPT 6 ROOSTER UPDT 01-19-93REPORTS NO. 6
t _ 1-19-93
ly
um nter-Com
ATE: JANUARY 19, 1992
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT'- ROOSTER UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION
On July 6, 1992 the Tustin City Council approved Ordinance No.
1090 establishing minimum standards for the maintenance of
roosters within the City. Prior to the adoption of that
ordinance, roosters were prohibited by the Code. However,
roosters were illegally maintained by residents in the "Old
Town" residential area.
These residents requested that the City Council adopt
Ordinance No. 1090 to permit roosters in their neighborhood
as roosters contribute to the unique character of the Old Town
residential neighborhoods. The new ordinance amended the
Animals and Fowl Code (Section 4221) and provided for the
keeping of roosters on R-1 lots within the Cultural Resources
Overlay District that are a minimum of 15,000 square feet in
size. The new ordinance further provided that a rooster be
maintained a minimum of 100 feet from any dwelling structure
and as close as possible to the rear property line in a house
or a coop. The coop must be fully enclosed with solid
materials to restrict light from entering the coop roosting
area from sunset to sunrise and to dampen or muffle the noise
impacts of any crowing. The new ordinance also required that
any house or coop in which a rooster is maintained be screened
from view of any neighboring. residential property. Finally
the ordinance required that screening consist of a fence,
hedge or wall and be in keeping with all other requirements of
the Tustin City Code.
The City Council requested that this issue be monitored and
reviewed again in six months to determine whether the new
requirements imposed by the Ordinance were mitigating the
noise problem created by crowing roosters in the neighborhood.
City Council Report
January 19, 1993
Page 2
•
As this review does not require a public hearing, no formal
notice was posted or sent. However a number of interested
parties were contacted by phone to alert them of the agenda
item.
The Community Development Department has received no formal
complaint concerning noise created by roosters crowing in the
past six months.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above information, it is recommended that no
action be taken by the City Council.
Becky C. Stone Christine ingl ton
Assistant Planner Assistant City Manag
Community Development Director
BS:br:rooster