Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-08-09 City Council (16)TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: POLICE DATE:AUGUST 9, 1999 CMR:342:99 SUBJECT:LEASH LAW ENFORCEMENT STATUS REPORT This is an informational report and no Council action is required at this time. BACKGROUND During the first part of the year, Animal Services staff received a number of calls from residents complaining about the number and frequency of dog owners who allowed their dogs to run free, especially in City parks and school grounds. As a result, Animal Control Officers (ACOs) began to patrol City parks more frequently. When it became apparent that warnings issued to violators were not having the desired effect, ACOs began issuing citations. A significant number of dog owners expressed their concern about the situation. In response, staff initiated a process of reviewing potential alternatives to address the issue. This report provides a status report on staff’s work in this regard. DISCUSSION Since April 1999, staff has been researching how other cities in the immediate area are dealing with this issue as well as conducting community outreach to assess the viewpoints from residents. It should be noted that cities use the terms dog runs and dog parks interchangeably to describe areas that are fenced, have water, trash receptacles, benches, and feces bags. The areas are either covered with grass or other materials such as tan bark. CMR:342:99 Page 1 of 4 San Francisco has approximately 20,000 dogs that are licensed, but an estimated 120,000 dogs in the City. It has designated a number of parks where dogs can be off-leash during certain hours. Consequently, a number of problems have developed. They include an increase in dog feces, a requirement for continual enforcement, damage to the parks, dogfights, and dog bites. As a result, the City developed a task force in an effort to resolve the issues. Its task force has met 20 times and has yet to develop any recommendations. San Mateo County - With the exception of the below listed cities, no city in San Mateo County allows dogs off-leash in any of their parks. Enforcement of leash laws varies from city to city. City ,of San Mateo is in the process of identifying one or two locations for dog parks. Foster City is in the process of designating three parks where dogs will be allowed off- leash only during early morning hours. Burlingame has identified an old garbage disposal site that will be turned into a dog run. San Bruno currently has one dog park located at Bayview Park. San Carlos has one dog park located at Heather Park. Redwood City has just opened its first dog run in the Redwood Shores area. It is a .6 acre site divided into two sections; one for large dogs and one for small dogs. Santa Clara Coun _ty - With the exception of the below listed cities, no city in Santa Clara County allows dogs off-leash in any of their parks. Mountain View has an ordinance that issues permits to dog owners who conduct off-leash dog training in three specific parks. The city has also recently identified Rengstorff Park as the location of its first dog run. Szmnyvale has a two-acre dog run located at La Palmas Park. Santa Clara has one dog run that is located at the corner of an elementary school property. Campbell is considering a one-half acre piece of property that was formerly a drive-in theater to be used as a dog park. CMR:342:99 Page 2 of 4 Milpitas is currently discussing a possible location for a dog run. San Jose has two dog parks: a two-acre site at Hellyer Park and at Miyuki Park. Communi _ty Outreach On May 12, 1999, staff held a community meeting that was attended by about 100 residents. At that meeting, a list of issues was compiled and the advantages and disadvantages of several options were discussed. Attachment A reflects the feedback from that meeting. A second community meeting was held on June 9, 1999. Approximately 100 residents also attended that meeting. Staff presented three questions to the audience. The audience was divided into four groups. Each group was asked to develop responses to the questions. All the responses were then shared with the large group. At the end of the meeting, attendees were given colored dots and were asked to place their dots on the responses that they favored the most. Attachment B provides the results of that meeting. Staff has also formed an advisory task force that will assist in the development of recommendations. In addition to representatives from the Police and Community Services Departments, members of the task force include: Deborah Frame - People for Unleashed Pet Space (PUPS) Bruce Grimes - PUPS Dr. Daniel Cher - Palo Altans for Responsible Dog Ownership Peter Lonsky - Palo Altans for Responsible Dog Ownership Bo Crane - AYSO Linda Bickham - Community David Clemenston - Community The task force has met once and a second meeting is scheduled for August 11. The group will attempt to complete the development of recommendations within five meetings. Staff anticipates presenting recommendations to the City Council by the end of the calendar year. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A - Community Outreach Meeting Leash Law Options, May 12, 1999 Attachment B - Community Outreach Meeting Leash Law Options, June 9, 1999 CMR:342:99 Page 3 of 4 PREPARED BY:LYNNE JOHNSON, Assistant Police Chief DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: PATRICK Police EMI~LY ~I S~-O~ Manager CMR:342:99 Page 4 of 4 ATTAC~[ENT A COMMI!NITY OUTREACH MEETING LEASH LAW OPTIONS May 12, 1999 Issues ~ Dogs need exercise. Some people are intimidated by dogs,especially off- leash. The City’s dog runs are overcrowded. City parks and school grounds are heavily used for organized athletic events. Dog urine/feces kills grass, creates safety hazards. Dogs and children/seniors don’t always interact well. Warnings have not deterred off-leash usage. Problems are not always from Pa!o Alto residents. ! in every 4 households has a dog. Off-leash vs. park exercise. Dog owners faced with limited space area for exercise. Dogs need to socialize, etc. ~ Dogs are doing more with organized obedience, agility, health care, etc. ~ Dogs of specific breeds and size have different needs. Not al! dogs licensed. Children need to be around dogs to develop good feelings not fear. Difference between dog "working" and socialization. ~ Dog owners would like exercise areas c!ose to home. There are cities that have made positive moves for dog owners. People work - hours that coincide with above. ~ Abi!ity to reach responsible entity to complain, etc. Possible experimental app. ~ Dog feces bag stations. ,~ Dogs provide safety. ,~ Dogs are criminalized. Change the law to target problem makers. Dogs in large groups can be a threat. Law must be enforceable. -~Dogs in the midst of play can be a safety hazard. Sports usage in parks is growing. Dog owners also park users. Option i Allow dog owners to exercise their dogs~ off-leash at certain hours/days at designated parks. Option ! Advantages People concerned about dog/people interaction can know ahead when not to go. Reduce illegal use of school grounds. Dogs in designated areas keep feces more controlled. Dog usage would be more spaced out with more options. Hours dogs are excluded - expand availability. Easy to enforce. Self-policing. Economical. Reducing aggression in dog runs. Can try a pi!ot program. Natural division of time to begin working with. Specific parks have individual usage. Park clean-up: dog and people. Option i - Disadvantaqes Limits usage for busy people. Dog feces left in park. Compet±tion for park space - sports, etc. Additiona! use of non-residents. Park usage varies with seasons. Does eliminate dog owners who don’t/can’t let dogs off- leash. Some parks have major jogging and bicycle trails in them. Option 2 Issue permits to dog owners to exercise/train their dogs off-leash at specific parks. Permit would be issued upon proof of license, vaccinations, possibly certificate of completion at dog obedience. Option 2 - Advantages Only responsible dog owners could use this option. Could !ook at !ocation,etc.,of parks to designate accordingly. Manage wear and tear. Could minimize non-resident usage. Specialized training can be allowed. Could be areas other than parks. Colored tag could act as license/permit. Neighborhood respect. Option 2 - Disadvantages Harder to enforce. Limited locations. Increase usage of designated parks. Harder to enforce for non-residents. More work for City employees. Limits usage of leashed dogs. Could non-residents apply for permits? Option 3 Construct additiona! dog runs. Option 3 - Advantages ~ Compromise area for safety, exercise. ~ Does not compete with sports fields. Option 3 - Disadvantages ~Time to construct. ,~Can’t socialize in runs. ~Some dogs need more exercise. ~Aggression - dogs on-leash vs. off-leash. -~Boring space for dogs. -~Cost. ,~Locations close to home. Option 4 No change - continue enforcing the leash law. Option 4 - Advantaqes Basic community education. Focus resources on people. Can enforce as problems occur. Selective enforcement; officer discretion. Go after no license. Additiona!. Option 4 - Disadvantaqes ~Additiona! complaints. ~Not consistent. ~Puts power in the hands of a few. ~Forces people to "break the law." ATTACRMENT B COMIMWJNITY OUTREACH MEETING LEASH LAW OPTIONS June 9, 1999 Question #!:How do we ensure that dogs get the exercise and socialization they need? Wel!-behaved and mannered aoos al!owed in al! public places. (2) Large open area (grassy); variety of sites. (8) Dog area in every park. (38 Post signage for safety. (i Additional dog parks. (i) Dog times in each park. (24 Enc!ose area with something; not fence (e.g., hay bale). (4) One large area for Palo Alto at dump - Baylands. (7) Encourage dog training classes in parks. City could resur_,cu type of dogs. Exercise on leash. (4) Ensure off-leash options are available. Privately funded/membership ~ao~ exercis= area {,~) Ciu,:, _~uneee!own~e membership only area. (2) ~x~_m -~c_{se/socia!ize in private No designatec park. Let decision on how each park is handled be done at ne~gnbo, nooe level. (3) No dog runs/pens because ~hey do not promote exercise/socialization and d__q promote aggressive behavior. Dog "nordic track" or other technology. Dog eaycare: Los Gatos, SF, NYC (w-~-~’.Kgto5.com) "Play catch" impossible on-leash. Need really large fenced area. Use backyard rather than park. (8) Walk dog. invite dogs/friends to your house. La~ce and secure places for o::-!e==n use year-round Sa~e :or p~p:e, ~oo. (I0) Take to ~andfi!!. (2) Question #i (cont’d) : Dog user buy land develop pr_va~e area. Socialization requires off-leash. (I) issue "fix it tickets to support dog obedience training. Exercise always on-leash. Off-leash essential for dogs. Put dog back on leash when others present. (!) Amend the current leash law to allow off-leash use in parks during certain hours. (32) Use Parks. Use dog runs. (4) Use backyards. Use sidewalks. Walk together with others. (I) Use undeveloped lands: Moffet Field, dump. (I) Organize group walks in parks. Use Pa!o Alto open snace lands. (31) Use athletic fields. Consider the e~ab=ishment of a first-class, large dog run such as Redwood Shores. (16) Dog runs. (!) Exercise permit and training. (2) Self-policing. (8) Dog clubs. (3) Limited hours/forbidden hours. ~.!!o~/~oro_~d~n n~k ¯ (I) Active supervision o~ dogs. (2) No dogs. New/larger dog runs; in/out of current parks. (3) School yards. Not off-leash out of parks/schools. Question #2:How do we ensure the health and safety of every person and dog in our parks? Education. (2) Self-policing / peer pressure. 2) C!ose a!l parks. Animal Services Community Policlng. Forbid dogs off-leash. A!low more dogs. What about other health and safety issues? Reliable training/permits. (%) Signage. Isolate viscious and dangerous dogs. (4) Wireless technology. (:) Rigorous fines for not cleaning up. (2) Clean-up. (i) Private dog park. Keep children out of dog run. In~:~ased~-~= community,_ education. (i) Code of conduct. (9) Increase fines for aggressive animals. (!} Leashes. Fenced off-leash areas. (i} Users cover costs? Designated (no fence) s:z-ie_sh areas (13) Specific hours off-leash. {28) Backyards vs. parks/schools. U~e community garden areas. Dogs under voice contrs!. (4) Larger dog runs. (3) Increase license fees. Signage. (2) Set specific times. (3 Use hay bales_ to des~~-~=_~_..~ dog area. (~). Use permits. Waste disposal. Lights. (3) Enforce leash law. (37 Enforce litter law. Question #2 (cont’d) : Require dog waste pick up. (i) Neighborhood volunteers to enforce/police parks, clean- up. (I) Involve Animal Services in community enforcement effort. (2) Al!ow off-leash use if park is empty. (37) Build bridges between dog owners and non-dog owners. (!) Require canine good citizen certificate. (3) Enforce a!l laws that impact safety in parks. (!0) Need system ~o handle complaints. (!) System where dog owners can sign a pledge to a "code of conduct." (!) Educate people and dogs. (i) Establish a code of conduct for people and dogs. (i) Separate people from dogs in time and place. (12) Subdivide areas within parks. (7) Enforce existing !aws: sanitation laws, leash laws, aggressive dog laws, license laws. (6) Certify good dog citizenship to allow dogs off-leash (permit). (13) Identify, with vest, dogs that have some kind of certification. (7) Question #3:.~.ow do we Q~al with the use of parks by different types of mark users? Tolerance wi~h respect. (3) Prioritize rights of various users (i.e., yield law). Acknowledge incompatibility of uses. Common sense. (13) Develop a permit system for off-leash dog use in parks. (35) Deve!op different designated park areas for different uses. (5) Only well ~-~=~~:~.~ dogs to ~=t off-leash mermits . Canine t~ze~: cate -good ci : -certifi and off leash contro! test deve!oped b-y animal control and Palo Alto dog training groups. Question #3 (cont’d) : Please do not forget about the small number of people doing forma! obedience or agility training. They almost never cause problems and need to work in an area free of other !oose dogs. I would propose training permits separate from exercise permits. Posted hours in specific parks. (15) Safety is primary issue. (2) Use common sense (e.g. if empty vs. people are in or come to area - responsible behavior). (18) Physical barriers. % of park for dogs. Code of conduct for dog owners. (4) Pa!o Alto dog club. (4) City sponsored dog training classes. (2) Permit system based on signed code of conduct. (6) Education program re dogs/humane issues. Find way to limit use to Pa!o Alto residents. (!) Dogs in park; check land use of space. Designated times (5) / places (6) / parks (7). People more important than dogs. (!2) Courtesy/caution/responsibility. (2) Respect for current law. (2) Dog recreation is legitimate. (3) Not all parks can be used by dogs. (!) Dogs don’t pay taxes; children are tax deductions. increase presence of animal control to enforce rules. (21) Schedules violate my rights, i don’t want to be told when i can use the park because dogs, rather than people, are priority. Selected sites for each use. (4) Selected times for each use. (7) Limit to residents of Pa!o Alto. (3) Sites other than parks. (!1) Better communication citizens ~-~ parks/rec. Treat dog groups like other sports/groups. (7) Emergency phones. Lights - more hours of park use. (6) Question #3 (cont’d) : >Historica! issues, changes in enforcement. >Dog size, some more intimidating than others; off-leash: little > big. (!)