HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1988/05/10 Item 9COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item 9_
• Meeting Date 5 / 10 / 8 8
ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCM-88-15 - Consideration of proposed
amendments to Chapters 6.04, 6.08 and 19.04 of the Municipal
Code relating to the number of dogs and cats permitted on
residential properties
Ordinance ~ ~~ / Amending Chapters 6.0pp4,n/ 6.08 a/~ndn19.04
v~u°..,~ a~ C :._r,:.a.1'm s,.i AiVD YiL'~t~~s~3iv
SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning (~~~
REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
The City Council, in response to a written request from Mrs. Patricia Bodi,
directed staff to review the City's animal regulations to determine if it
would be appropriate to allow a greater number of dogs on single family lots.
These proposed amendments are a result of that review. The basic regulations
are not changing; that is, the same number of dogs and cats as previously
permitted on a standard R-1 lot are still permitted. The change is to allow
fora minor increase in number based on a larger lot circumstance.
The proposal is a Class 5f exemption from environmental review.
RECOMMENDATION: That Council concur with the recommendation of the Planning
commission.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On March 23, 1988, the Planning
Commission, by a vote of 5-1 and in accordance with Resolution PCM-88-15,
recommended adoption of the amendments listed on Exhibit A.
DISCUSSION:
Chapter 6 of the Chula Vista ~~1unicipal Code presently allows no more than
three dogs and three cats on an R-1 single family lot, and two dogs or two
cats i n multiple-family zones. The keeping of four or more dogs or cats i s
considered to be a kennel/cattery and is not allowed in residential zones.
The purpose in limiting the number of domestic animals on residential
properties is to help control the potential adverse impacts of noise, odors
and sanitary conditions on surrounding residents.
Enforcement of the regulations occurs primarily from complaints by neighbors.
The owner is first given a warning to reduce the number of animals and then a
citation is issued if necessary. Enforcement is almost totally restricted to
dogs, because cats are not licensed nor required to be under the direct
control of their owner, and residents often claim that the extra cat(s) are
strays.
NOTE: Regardless of the number of animals permitted, Chapter 6 also contains
provisions which require animal premises to be kept sanitary and free of
ffensive odors or disease, and ~•~hich prohibit animals from being allowed to
~isturb the peace or constitute a public nuisance or hazard. (In the case of
noise, an affirmation by two separate residents of a disturbance of the piece
is prima facie evidence of a violation.)
•
ANALYSIS:
Page 2, Item y
Meeting Date_/-~1~/"~8
Mr. Bill Will, the Senior Animal Control Officer, has prepared a memo
outlining the position of Animal Control (please see attached), and the
Director of Public Safety, Chief Winters, concurs with Mr. Will's
recommendations.
Mr. Will believes it would be appropriate to apply the multiple-family limit
of two dogs or cats to smaller single-family lots using a lot size of 3,500
sq. ft. as the cut-off. This lot size distinction is consistent with the
present application of the multiple-family limit to R-2 lots, which allow one
dwelling unit for each 3,500 sq. ft. of land area. The amendments would
establish a sliding scale for larger lots which would allow up to four dogs
for a lot between 10,000-15,000 sq. ft., five dogs for a lot between
15,000-20,000 sq. ft., and six dogs if the lot size is 20,000 sq. ft. or
larger. The vast majority of lots--those between 3,500-10,000 sq. ft.--would
be allowed the existing single-family limit of three dogs and cats.
Single-family dwellings are often located in R-3 zones, and some multiple-
family dwellings are located in commercial zones as well. In order to provide
an equitable and consistent set of regulations, the ordinance language has
been revised to refer to land use rather than the underlying zone. Several
definitions have also been revised to conform with the proposed amendments.
~e proposed amendments would legitimize Ms. Bodi's current circumstance
because she presently maintains five dogs on a lot of approximately 15,000 sq.
ft.
FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable.
WPC 4934P
• by tf C
Jf - cil of
Chula Vista, Cafi~ornia
Dated
a
by ti~~ ui~~ . ~,^il of
Chula V'i~",, C"'iiornia
Dated