Revise the existing Animal Leash Law to REMOVE this language : The Animal Control Officer may, at his/her discretion, waive the provisions of Subsection A if a determination is made that the owner or keeper has a valid reason to have the dog unleashed or untethered for training, exhibition or show purposes. [Amended 8-21-2017 by Ord. No. 2018-4]

Transcript (~13 min @ 23:20)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 23:11 Manjula Karamcheti: Seeing no objections, public comment is now closed. So, moving on to ordinances, we have two that we're looking at this evening. The first is ordinance ID number 2025 dash 6 1 3, which is the revision of the existing animal leash law. To remove this language, the animal control officer may, at his her discretion, waive the provisions of subsection A, if a determination is made that the owner or keeper has a valid reason to have the dog unleashed or untethered for training exhibition or show purposes. So just to summarize, this is to take out this language from the current, um, ordinance that we have in place. What is, oh, go ahead, counselor for nario.

▶ 24:02 Cal Finocchiaro: Yes, thank you. Um, I am the maker of this revision, so I just wanted to give some context. Um, and I actually have a statement from the Parks Commission, um, department Park Department, uh, Rob Carillo. Okay. Um, that I'll read in a second. But, um, basically this came about, uh, we had a few incidences in the city where, um, residents were attacked by unleashed dogs, as well as other dogs were attacked by unleashed dogs. Um, a few that we're aware of anyways that were reported. Um, and so this little clause allows people to have unleashed dogs for training or show purposes. It was added, I think, in 2017. And so in order for the police and for the parks department to enforce the, uh, the leash law, um, it just seems appropriate to remove this language because we actually don't want unleashed dogs anywhere, but to be trained anywhere inside, like anywhere other than a person's enclosed yard or like the dog park. And we have two of those dog parks in the city. So, um, that's the purpose and kind of the background why we're looking to remove this language. And I'll read Rob Carlo's statement, if that's okay. That

▶ 25:17 Manjula Karamcheti: Would be great. And then if we could add that to the record.

▶ 25:20 Cal Finocchiaro: Yep. Um, sorry. He emailed this to me. So I, uh, as superintendent of Parks and Open Spaces to support this decision to revise existing Animal leash law by removing the discretionary language that allows the animal control officer to waive leash requirements for training, exhibition, or show purposes. While discretion can be valuable in limited circumstances, this provision creates ambi ambiguity and enforcement and increases the potential for inconsistent application of the law within public parks and open spaces. Our department is not opposed to the presence of dogs and parks, however, our foremost responsibility is to ensure the safety, comfort, and equitable use of public space for all residents. Unleashed dogs regardless of training intent, can present safety concerns for children, seniors, wildlife, and other park users, as well as create uncertainty, uncertainty for individuals who may be uncomfortable around dogs, clear and consistently. And Forest leash regulations help reduce conflicts and promote a predictable, safe environment for everyone. Thank you. Rob Carillo, superintendent of Parks and Open Spaces. Um, I did, um, receive, uh, some feedback from the chief of police as well. Um, he was actually asking if we could in addition, sorry, this just kind of came in today, so I didn't get a chance to send it, um, request a law enforcement exemption or something of that nature. Uh, for canines that are training, uh, doing an exhibition. So technically like they're able to have off, off leash dogs, you know, law enforcement, but not like the typical resident. So I don't know if we wanna incorporate that tonight or everybody thinks about that. So with that, I'll throw it back to you.

▶ 27:13 Manjula Karamcheti: Do any counselors have any questions regarding the removal of the language that's proposed tonight? Councilor Vanderberg.

▶ 27:23 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. Um, I guess, uh, my main ma misgiving about it is just, as you know, uh, through the chair, as you know, we have issues with enforcement generally speaking mm-hmm. Um, of all of our ordinances. And so, uh, I'm not sure, I, I think we should get the ordinances right. So I think if if there's a need to make the ordinance fit better, we should do that. I think we should just acknowledge that we have an ongoing issue with enforcement of our ordinances that, um, that this will not, and, and so this will not get us all the way necessarily to where we want to be with these issues that have been coming up with off-leash dogs. Thank you,

▶ 28:01 Manjula Karamcheti: Counselor. Oh, would you like to respond through the chair,

▶ 28:05 Speaker 4: If that's okay? I respond.

▶ 28:07 Cal Finocchiaro: Um, so I guess there have been instances where the parks department or the police have tried to enforce the Unleashed dog ordinance, and there are some residents that are aware of this sort of loophole. Um, and so we kind of are stuck, so it will help them enforce it if it's not there.

▶ 28:30 Manjula Karamcheti: I'm gonna call on counselor President Freeman as a voting member. Councilor Kowal as a voting member, and then Councilor Williams as a non-voting member. Thank you. Chair. The floor is

▶ 28:40 Bradley Freeman: Yours. I drew you to, to Council Ncu. I wanna thank you for filing this ordinance. And I think that, you know, one conversation I did have with the health department is I wanted to get a sense from them how prevalent the application to have an unleashed dog is. And health director shared in his four years, he's had one application for this. So I do think in that this will remove any ambiguity for law enforcement, code enforcement for many residents saying they have this permission, which is permission structure that has not been utilized by residents. I, I, I think is appropriate at this time. And then to councilor Van de Be's Point would love to talk about code enforcement and how we help mitigate this problem, you know? Mm-hmm. While enforcing the ordinance.

▶ 29:18 Speaker 5: Thank you Councilor Kowal. So

▶ 29:22 Elizabeth Kowal: I have similar, um, backing up what Councillor Vandiver and Councillor Freeman said about the enforcement of this. Um, I don't have objection to the language as written, but, um, it's, I feel like it's a little bit toothless right now if we don't have enforcement. So I guess one of my questions is who ultimately we don't, and we also don't have an animal control officer, so who ultimately is responsible for enforcing this? And I think, so that's one question. Um, what is it the police? And do they know that? Is it the health? You know, who, who is it? Um, so I think that needs to be clear. And then again, I do think we need to somehow take this further and really put teeth into this because it's, right now, it's, it's not, you know, there's nothing to prevent people from doing this if people aren't enforcing it and there's no follow up to it. So we do need to revisit this along with many other ordinances that we have that don't have enforcement behind them.

▶ 30:18 Manjula Karamcheti: Thank you Councilor Williams.

▶ 30:20 Speaker 1: Good, Thanks.

▶ 30:22 Ryan Williams: Um, reviewing the current or current ordinance, I see schedule of fees. It is supposedly the animal control officer that establishes, but it is later, uh, said in registration and licensing and other sections that the chief of police is sort of the defacto person that somebody would contact mm-hmm. If they have a problem with dogs. And, um, having dog myself, um, I, although not a voting member, I'm very supportive of the cleanup. I think it's super important because people do know when there's a loophole and if you have a person who's, uh, you know, having frequent problem with having their dog off leash, um, it's, you know, it's very hard for us to prevent the first time something happens, but a person who knows that it's not required will do it again and again and again and again. And that's when you can see the benefit of this. So I'm very supportive. Uh, I appreciate the effort to streamline and make small changes. They make a big difference. So, thank you.

▶ 31:23 Speaker 5: And Go ahead, councilor.

▶ 31:24 Cal Finocchiaro: I wanna add something else that, um, I think with this revision, we were hoping to maybe do, uh, well the Millers Police and possibly administration, we spoke about doing sort of like a social media, um, campaign or, or whatnot to, uh, kind of refresh, refresh everybody's mind that, that this is off awfully dogs and not, you know, allowed and kind of put it out there. So, uh, just to reiterate it. So hoping if we can get this done, we can do that. So yeah. Thanks.

▶ 31:55 Manjula Karamcheti: Uh, Councillor Vandiver.

▶ 31:57 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. Uh, and I just wanted to add to that, um, thinking about how we might take this further, uh, I don't know if we currently have any signage at our parks to this effect, um, where we could list out what is isn't allowed, what are the fines. That might also be helpful if, if you're, um, through the chair, if you're in contact with the parks department, might be something to also discuss.

▶ 32:19 Cal Finocchiaro: Yeah, there are, there are signs. I know that they just might need to be larger, more information maybe. That's definitely, um, I agree with everything you're saying. I think we need to enforce and also have additional signage, so.

▶ 32:35 Manjula Karamcheti: Great. So at this time I'll ask what is the will of the committee being that there is one moving forward on this, but also would you be proposing an amendment of any kind at this time?

▶ 32:48 Cal Finocchiaro: Yes. I was going to propose the amendment to add additional language. Um, if I could open my phone here, um,

▶ 32:59 Cal Finocchiaro: and I'd have to figure out where to put it. Um,

▶ 33:03 Speaker 1: Section D exemptions is A good, okay, there we go. Um,

▶ 33:07 Ryan Williams: But it has to be sort of in the main line and not in the following, because the following are reasons why

▶ 33:14 Speaker 1: it's about the off-leash dog area.

▶ 33:16 Cal Finocchiaro: Okay. So I propose to amend along, um, with approving the removal of this language in section, um, well, nine three dash six D in that first line adding,

▶ 33:34 Cal Finocchiaro: um, law enforcement, oh, I don't know

▶ 33:38 Speaker 4: how to phrase this here. Um, lemme think about this. Hold on one second.

▶ 33:50 Cal Finocchiaro: Uh, canine law enforcement canines are exempt from, well, I, I have to, I read, I I don't have the language here. Yeah. And to think about how to write it. Um, so I dunno if we guys should think about this and add it later, or we could do it in full counsel. Okay.

▶ 34:03 Speaker 5: Councilor Williams. Well, yeah,

▶ 34:04 Ryan Williams: actually you just said you could do it in full counsel, which is right. I was gonna make a suggestion, but we could, um, if,

▶ 34:10 Speaker 4: I mean, if you have a language suggestion after, well,

▶ 34:12 Ryan Williams: My suggestion would be, um, police dogs, unofficial business or police dogs, uh, and unofficial police business are exempt. Okay. That would include all operations with police dogs, whether it's actual Okay. You know, dogs being,

▶ 34:26 Manjula Karamcheti: If I may suggest bringing it to full counsel as we could consult with the police department to make sure that we get the language specifically that will allow them to do the training and to utilize the dogs in a way that is in service of the public. Uh, I would hate to rush it and then not have it what we need it to be agreed to be utilized. Okay. Councilor Vandiver,

▶ 34:52 Kimberly Vandiver: I think the other alternative would be to keep it in committee and bring it back in two weeks here, where we could also wordsmith here. Um, I, I just worry a little bit about bringing it to full council without being fully 100% there. Just in case we in the moment also can't figure out exactly the right thing. It might be assure that if, if it's okay timeline wise, to keep it in committee a couple weeks and come back to it, get the words right and send it to council, that, that would be my preference. But I'll go with what the will of the committee is on it.

▶ 35:22 Speaker 5: I think I saw President Freeman.

▶ 35:25 Bradley Freeman: Thank you. Um, the one concern I would have with keeping it in council is I believe we are bumping up against the 45 days right now because this was filed and sent to committee on December 5th, or the last meeting of the council, I believe. Mm-hmm. So we are pushing it there.

▶ 35:40 Speaker 5: Okay. So can We, council Williams, did you have your hand up?

▶ 35:43 Ryan Williams: Sure. Just I say just pass it as is then. 'cause you can immediately go back and re re amend it very next l and l meeting. You can just put the new language in. We'll

▶ 35:51 Speaker 5: Do that. All right. Then I will ask, what is the will of the committee motion? Motion

▶ 35:56 Speaker 7: To recommend. Second.

▶ 35:59 Manjula Karamcheti: Okay. We have a motion to recommend by Councilor Vandiver as

▶ 36:01 Speaker 7: Amended motion to recommend as amended

▶ 36:03 Manjula Karamcheti: Motion to recommend as amended by Councillor Van Devin. Seconded by President Freeman. All in favor?

▶ 36:11 Speaker 1: Aye. Council can at you. 'cause we didn't

▶ 36:12 Kimberly Vandiver: Make Oh, you're right. We didn't amend. This itself is an amendment. Yeah. Just a motion to recommend. That's all I was making. Second. All

▶ 36:18 Manjula Karamcheti: Right. We are all on the same page, though. The amended is what we're voting on. Excellent. Um, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right. This motion passes and we'll move to our full council meeting.