Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-17-2018 Item 13 - Keeping of Noisy Animals Meeting Date: 7/17/2018 FROM: Deanna Cantrell, Chief of Police Prepared By: Jeff Smith, Captain SUBJECT: SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE 6.20.010 -- KEEPING NOISY ANIMALS RECOMMENDATION Review the City’s current ordinance related to noisy animals and how it coincides with the Animal Care and Control Services agreement with County Animal Services. No changes to the City’s current ordinance are proposed at this time in favor of alternative approaches described herein. DISCUSSION The purpose of this proposal is to review the City’s current ordinance related to the handling of noisy animals and enforcement action that can be taken. Currently, the City has a contract with the County of San Luis Obispo under the “Animal Care and Control Services” contract. Through this contract, County Animal Services provides a number of services within the City, including the handling of noisy animals such as barking dogs. The services outlined within the contract are consistent with the services provided to surrounding cities. Background During the past year, an incident involving a barking dog went unresolved due to unique circumstances that fell outside the required documentation within the City’s current municipal code. Historically, prior to any enforcement action being taken against an owner of a habitual noisy animal, there is defined criteria which must be met prior to County Animal Services acting. One of the required criteria is that there must be three verification letters, from different residences, confirming the habitual nuisance. This requirement is standard in noisy animal/barking dog ordinances. However, based on the location of the resident affected by the barking dog, there are no other neighbors surrounding this location that could attest to the habitual noisy animal. Since the violation could not be substantiated by two additional residences, County Animal Services was unwilling to take enforcement action against the responsible owner of the barking dog. The handling of noisy animals is addressed in San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 6.20.010, which states: 6.20.010 Keeping noisy animals—Prohibited. No person shall keep, maintain or permit on any lot or parcel of land any dogs, animals, poultry or household pets, which by any sound or cry shall disturb the peace and comfort of any neighborhood, or interfere with any person in the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of life or property. (Prior code § 4001) PACKET PAGE 551 13 6.20.020 Keeping of noisy animals—Complaints—Abatement. Whenever it shall be affirmed in writing by three or more persons having separate residences or are regularly employed in the neighborhood that any dog, animal, poultry or household pet is a habitual nuisance by reason of howling, barking or other noise, or is in any other manner causing undue annoyance, the poundmaster, if he or she finds such nuisance to exist, shall serve notice upon the owner or custodian that such nuisance shall be abated, or the animal shall be impounded. If such nuisance and annoyance cannot be successfully abated and the poundmaster determines it necessary to impound such dog, animal, poultry or household pet, he or she shall not permit the reclaiming or redemption of such to the owner or custodian unless adequate arrangements have been made by the owner or custodian to ensure abatement of the annoyance or nuisance. (Prior code § 4001.1) The current contract with the County Animal Control Services is attached to this Council Agenda Report. (Attachment A). The portion of that contract that applies to this circumstance is under section 1 which states: 1) County Obligations. The County shall perform the following duties. b) Field Services i) Receive and respond to public calls for service related to alleged violations of local or state code pertaining to the care, keeping, treatment, and management of animals. The police department has discussed the above incident with County Animal Services and alternatives that can be implemented to help resolve future incidents with similar circumstances. This unique incident caused County Animal Services to reevaluate its processes and identify alternative enforcement approaches. These approaches include: 1. A County Animal Control Officer initiating enforcement based on their independent judgment using other enforcement powers. 2. If the County Animal Control Officer determines that the incidences do not meet enforcement thresholds. The Animal Control Officer will provide the impacted party with the following options: a. File a civil nuisance complaint. b. Assist with a citizen’s citation or “citizen’s arrest”. County Animal Services understands this is not a common occurrence and recommends that the contract remain consistent with all other municipal ordinances that address nuisance or noisy animals. This provides uniformity in training and enforcement across all cities within the County. In the future, if there is an incident involving a nuisance animal and it only impacts one resident, County Animal Services will act as the verifying party to the ongoing nuisance and will take appropriate action or assist a neighbor. County Animal Services Staff will be at the City Council meeting to answer any questions that the Council may have about the enforcement approaches described in this report. PACKET PAGE 552 13 CONCURRENCES The City Attorney concurs with the recommendation to make no amendments to the current noisy animal ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT Currently, the City is under contract with the County of San Luis Obispo to provide animal services related to the keeping of noisy animals. There would be no additional cost to the City to continue with the current ordinance. If the recommendation is to change the current ordinance and allow the police department to begin enforcing noisy animal complaints, there could be a significant impact to the police department. The impacts would be associated with availability of resources, officer time spent on calls, frequency of calls, competing calls for service, data collection, and information sharing with the County. ALTERNATIVES Alternative to the approaches described above would be for a Police Officer to cite a barking dog under Chapter 9.12 which is the City’s current Noise Ordinance. The City could amend Municipal Code section 6.20.020 to not require the “three or more” verification requirement. For example, another common way “barking dog” ordinances are written is to require three or more complaints within a six -month time frame and for the local agency to corroborate the existence of a barking dog. It should also be noted that the County has more animal control services and enforc ement tools than the City. For example, certain animal control violations can include animal impoundment – the City does not have the resources for this type of enforcement which is why such services are contracted out to the County. As such, the police department recommends that the Council make no change to the current ordinance at this time. The circumstances in the above -mentioned incident are uncommon and the police department has come to an agreement with County Animal Services to address future similar incidents using other enforcement tools or assisting the impacted neighbor with civil options. Since the City contracts with County Animal Services to address violations related to noisy animals, staff would prefer to remain consistent with other jurisdictions in the handling of these incidents. Attachments: a - Animal Care and Control Services Contract PACKET PAGE 553 13 PACKET PAGE 554 13 PACKET PAGE 555 13 PACKET PAGE 556 13 PACKET PAGE 557 13 PACKET PAGE 558 13 PACKET PAGE 559 13 PACKET PAGE 560 13 PACKET PAGE 561 13 PACKET PAGE 562 13 PACKET PAGE 563 13 PACKET PAGE 564 13