Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After public debate, council decides not to change prohibition on backyard fowl and livestock
Summary
Council reviewed a staff report and public testimony on whether to amend Guadalupe Municipal Code section 6.04.0.201 to allow residential fowl. After extended public comment, councilmembers expressed mixed views and the mayor and several members said the ordinance should remain unchanged; staff were not directed to draft an amendment.
The Guadalupe City Council heard an information report and extensive public comment on whether to amend Guadalupe Municipal Code section 6.04.0.201, the city s prohibition on keeping fowl, livestock and wild animals on residential property.
Public safety staff summarized that the ordinance bans fowl, livestock and wild animals and that the rule allows 90 days for existing animals to come into compliance when it was adopted. Staff said the item had generated written and verbal comments both in favor of and opposed to changing the code.
Speakers during public comment included Frances Romero, a land-use consultant who said small lots in Guadalupe make backyard animals a likely nuisance and described rodent, odor and disease risks; other residents cited unsanitary conditions they had observed where chickens were kept improperly. Several residents and one speaker supported allowing hens (but not roosters) as a way to reduce household food costs and provide pest control; one commenter said a backyard coop can pay for itself in about six months.
Councilmembers debated enforcement capacity, public-health risks such as avian influenza and salmonella, noise and neighborhood impacts, and the administrative workload that a permitting system could create. Councilmember Costa Junior said he favored an amendment with a permit and fee so the city could track and enforce compliance; other members, including Councilmember Jean and Mayor Julian, said they were inclined to retain the current ordinance. Councilmember Christina explicitly said she supported leaving the ordinance as-is.
At the meeting's close, councilmembers expressed no desire to direct staff to draft an ordinance change. Councilmember Costa Junior asked to amend the code, but the majority of council indicated they preferred no change. Mayor Julian summarized the council s direction as "keep the ordinance as written" and staff said no formal motion was necessary.
Why it matters: The ordinance affects residents who may want to keep chickens for food or pest control and balances those interests against neighbor impacts, public health concerns and the city's enforcement capacity.
Ending
Staff closed the item after the council expressed majority preference to retain the current prohibition; city staff will not draft an amendment at this time unless subsequent direction is given by council.
