HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/09/11 Item 07TY COUNCIL
STATEMENT
~~ CITY OF
CHULA VISTA
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012, Item
ITEM TITLE: ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REVISING
TITLE 6, ANIMALS, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING NEW SECTION 6.30.040 PET HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PET SELLERS ~ \~//
n
SUBMITTED BY: ANIMAL CARE FACILITY MANAGER
REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGERS.? ~, ,7 S
ASSISTANT CITY MANAGERS ~
4/STHS VOTE: YES ~ NO
SUMMARY
The City of Chula Vista Animal Caze Facility (CVACF) is responsible for animal care and
animal control services in the City of Chula Vista. One of the goals of the CVACF is to
maximize the save rate for dogs and cats impounded at the CVACF.
On February 28, 2012 the Chula Vista City Council approved changes and additions to Title
6, Animals, of the City of Chula Vista's Municipal Code intended to improve the save rate
of impounded cats and dogs as well as to update this portion of the Municipal Code.
This action recommends three additional changes and additions.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Director of Development Services has review the proposed activity for compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the
activity is not a "project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines
because it consists of administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect
physical changes to the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the
State CEQA Guidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental
review is necessary.
RECOMMENDATION
Council accept the Ordinance for first reading.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not Applicable.
7-1
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012, Item 7
Page 2 of 3
BACKGROUND
The CVACF is responsible for providing animal care and animal control services in the
City of Chula Vista. Much of Title 6, Animals, of the Municipal Code was outdated and
in need of updating. The Council action on February 28, 2012 made substantial updates
to Title 6. However, three items required additional staff review.
DISCUSSION
Section 6.01 J. currently defines "cattery" but does not establish a threshold number of
cats in the definition. It is recommended that the definition of "cattery" be modified to
read: J. "cattery" means a place kept for the purpose of the boarding, breeding, raising,
selling or exchanging of cats and which keeps or maintains eleven (11) or more cats at
least six (6) months of age or older .
Section 6.04.070 prohibits wild animals to include not allowing possession or
maintenance of "birds attaining an adult weight over fifteen (15) pounds" in the
jurisdiction of the ordinance, i.e., the City of Chula Vista. In order to better clarify this
prohibition, it is recommended that this phrase be replaced with "ratites including
ostriches, emus and rheas."
Chapter 6.30 addresses Animal Sales. In order to provide healthy, safe living conditions
for dogs and cats housed in the City of Chula Vista by pet sellers, it is recommended that
the following Section 6.30.040 "Pet housing requirements for pet sellers" be added to
Title 6.
6.30.040 Pet housing requirements for pet sellers.
Pet sellers who house dogs and cats in the City of Chula Vista must comply with
the following:
A. The facility shall have adequate quantities of food and supplies, adequate
refrigeration to protect perishable food, and adequate storage facilities to keep food and
supplies dry, clean and uncontaminated;
B. The operator shall maintain the entire facility in a clean and sanitary condition
at all times;
C. The operator shall provide each animal housed in the facility with food that is
uncontaminated, wholesome and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to meet the
normal daily requirements for the condition and size of the animal. The food shall be
provided in clean and sanitary receptacles and accessible to each animal and located to
minimize contamination by excreta;
D. The operator shall provide each animal with potable water in clean and
sanitary receptacles available to the animal at all times, unless a licensed veterinarian has
restricted an animal's water intake. The water receptacle shall be secured to prevent the
receptacle from being tipped over;
E. The facility shall protect each animal housed in the facility from the elements,
including sun, heat, cold, wind, dampness, rain and snow and shall maintain
environmental conditions for each animal that are appropriate for that animal;
7-2
SEPTEMBER 11, 2012, Item ~
Page 3 of 3
F. The facility shall provide adequate fresh air ventilation for the health and
comfort of each animal in a manner that minimizes drafts, odors and moisture
condensation;
G. The operator shall provide a receptacle for cats containing sufficient clean
litter in an enclosure to contain excreta based upon the number of cats in the enclosure;
H. Any primary enclosure or kennel house of the facility shall meet the minimum
space requirements in Table 6.08.103;
I. Unaltered males and females will be housed separately when they are not
breeding;
J. Animals will be vaccinated with core vaccines as recommended by their
veterinarian and vaccination records shall be kept;
K. All animals shall be microchipped prior to delivery to the buyer;
L. Pet seller facilities are subject to inspection by City staff at the direction of the
City of Chula Vista Animal Care Facility Manager based on complaints.
The initial draft recommendations for the preceding three items were forwarded to the
stakeholders group, which had previously met extensively on the issues addressed at the
February 28, 2012 Council meeting. These stakeholders were given the opportunity to
provide their input on these issues via phone or email or at a meeting held on August 23,
2012. The input received from the stakeholders was used to modify the initial draft
recommendations.
Concern was expressed by stakeholders about disputes over interpretation and/or
application of Title 6. It was pointed out that members of the public have access to the
Animal Care Facility Manager, the Assistant City Manager and the City Manager to
assist in resolving issues.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the actions contemplated by this item and has determined that the
actions are not site specific and, consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code
of Regulations Section 18704.2(a) is not applicable.
CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT
No significant fiscal impact is expected as a result of this action. The upcoming Master
Fee Schedule update will address the related fiscal impacts.
ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT
No significant fiscal impact is expected as a result of this action. The upcoming Master
Fee Schedule update will address the related fiscal impacts.
ATTACHMENTS
Proposed Revised Ordinance
Prepared by: Scott Tulloch, Assistant City Manager
7-3
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING
TITLE 6, ANIMALS, OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADDING NEW SECTION 6.30.040 PET HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS FOR PET SELLERS
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista Animal Care Facility (CVACF) is responsible for
animal caze and animal control services in the City of Chula Vista; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2012 the Chula Vista City Council approved substantial
updates to Title 6, Animals, to improve the save rate of impounded cats and dogs and to update
this portion of the Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, at the direction of the City Council, staff continued work on re-defining a
cattery, clarifying a reference to wild birds, and developing pet housing requirements for pet
sellers; and
WHEREAS, staff worked on these three topics with stakeholders involved in the
February 28, 2012 ordinance update; and
WHEREAS, a working draft of the proposed amendments was provided to stakeholders
for review and comment by phone, email or discussion at a meeting held on August 23, 2012.
NOW THEREFORE, with the above-recitations incorporated herein, the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows:
Section I. That Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 6.01.010 is amended to read as
follows:
J. "Cattery" means a place kept for the purpose of the boarding, breeding, raising, selling or
exchanging of cats and which keeps or maintains eleven (11) or more cats at least six (6) months
of age or older;
Secondly, that Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 6.04.070 is amended to read as
follows:
6.04.070 Wild animals prohibited -Hawks and falcons excepted when -Other exceptions.
No person shall possess or maintain within the jurisdiction of the ordinance codified in this
section any animal which is not normally domesticated in the United States, including, but not
limited to, any lion, tiger, beaz, nonhuman primate (monkey, chimpanzee, etc.), wolf, cougaz,
ocelot, wildcat, skunk, venomous reptile, ~' a ~"~~~~~~ °~ ~a••'` ~°°~~'~` ,.o ~~ °•' ' c ""'•~''°
ratites including ostriches, emus and rheas, rodents attaining an adult weight of over 10 pounds,
7-4
Ordinance
Page 2
or any crocodilian (order Crocodilia), irrespective of its actual or asserted state of docility,
tameness or domesticity. Such an animal shall be referred to as a "wild animal." In addition, the
owner of any boa or python species (family Boidae) attaining an adult weight of over 15 pounds
or an overall length of over three and one-half feet, and the owner of any monitor lizazd species
(family Varanidae) that attains an adult weight of over 10 pounds or an adult overall length over
three feet, shall keep these animals in cages or enclosures of such size and construction as to
preclude the possibility of escape and at the same time permit the animals reasonable freedom of
movement. If these animals are maintained in such a manner, and the owner complies with all
federal, state and local laws or regulations affecting such animals, it will not be considered a
"wild animal" subject to this section. However, any failure to maintain a boa, python or monitor
lizazd species in the above manner could subject the owner to a dangerous animal abatement
proceeding as authorized by this chapter.
The sale, possession for sale, importation or breeding of a wild animal is absolutely prohibited.
This section does not apply to birds, small rodents or nonvenomous reptiles commonly used for
educational or experimental purposes or for pets.
This section shall not apply to legally operated zoos or circuses or to recognized institutions of
learning or scientific research unless the City Manager or his or her designee gives 48 hours'
advance notice that, by reason of inadequate caging or other means of protection of the public
from such animals, or by the ineffectiveness of sanitation measures, or by a particular hazard
connected with the animal or animals involved, the public health and welfare will be endangered.
It is further provided that certain raptorial birds or birds of prey, such as hawks and falcons, may
be maintained in the City by licensed falconers, who may acquire a qualified ownership of such
birds of prey for the practice of falconry by complying with Fish and Game Commission rules
and regulations.
Lastly, that Section 6.30.40 is added to Chapter 6.30, Animal Sales:
Chapter 6.30.040 Pet housing requirements for pet sellers.
Pet sellers who house dogs and cats in the City of Chula Vista must comply with the
following:
A. The facility shall have adequate quantities of food and supplies, adequate refrigeration
to protect perishable food, and adequate storage facilities to keep food and supplies dry, clean
and uncontaminated;
B. The operator shall maintain the entire facility in a clean and sanitary condition at all
times;
C. The operator shall provide each animal housed in the facility with food that is
uncontaminated, wholesome and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to meet the normal
daily requirements for the condition and size of the animal. The food shall be provided in clean
and sanitary receptacles and accessible to each animal and located to minimize contamination by
excreta;
D. The operator shall provide each animal with potable water in clean and sanitazy
receptacles available to the animal at all times, unless a licensed veterinazian has restricted an
animal's water intake. The water receptacle shall be secured to prevent the receptacle from
being tipped over;
7-5
Ordinance
Page 3
E. The facility shall protect each animal housed in the facility from the elements,
including sun, heat, cold, wind, dampness, rain and snow and shall maintain environmental
conditions for each animal that are appropriate for that animal;
F. The facility shall provide adequate fresh air ventilation for the health and comfort of
each animal in a manner that minimizes drafts, odors and moisture condensation;
G. The operator shall provide a receptacle for cats containing sufficient clean litter in an
enclosure to contain excreta based upon the number of cats in the enclosure;
H. Any primary enclosure or kennel house of the facility shall meet the minimum space
requirements in Table 6.08.103;
L Unaltered males and females will be housed separately when they are not breeding;
J. Animals will be vaccinated with core vaccines as recommended by their veterinarian
and vaccination records shall be kept;
K. All animals shall be microchipped prior to delivery to the buyer;
L. Pet seller facilities are subject to inspection by City staff at the direction of the City of
Chula Vista Animal Care Facility Manager based on complaints.
Section II. Severability
If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for
any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent
jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the
Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of
Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase
of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses
or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional.
Section III. Construction
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to
duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in
light of that intent.
Section IV. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage.
Section V. Publication
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published or posted according to law.
Presented By:
Scott Tulloch
Assistant City Manager
Approved as to form by:
~~~ ~M
Glen R. Googins
City Attorney
7-6
a~4~~/ TiO~t1A~
/~~'~ ~ 7
From: drhfseldin
/ti/~t~,~~j/0~
Monday, September 10, 2012 1:25 PM
To: rudyramirez
Subject: Re: Pet Sellers draft ordinance on Council agenda tomorrow. Please address these concerns
from AKC.
Rudy-
Thanks for your prompt response. Sounds like overwhelming support for the microchipping. I personally
have my dogs microchipped, and actually the two in the past 10 years I got from breeders came to me
with microchips.
My bigger concerns are with the vagueness of the language, per AKC's comments.
Thanks for looking into this. Hope the language can be improved.
Harriet
From: drhfseldin
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 12:02 PM
To: rudyramirez
Subject: Pet Sellers draft ordinance on Council agenda tomorrow
AKC.
Rudy-
Please address these concerns from
I just learned that there is an extensive dog/cat agenda item for the CV Council meeting this Tuesday,
Sept 11th. Do you know about this? I was not included in the list of people notified. Apparently, city staff
sent a notice on September 7th. I think this was generated by staff. The proposal includes mandatory
microchipping of all pets sold (which should be voluntary, not mandatory), and INSPECTION of pet
sellers, based on complaints, with no details on what sort of complaints would result in an inspection, no
detail on rights of homeowners in responding to complaints. Since there are no commercial kennels that I
know of in CV at present, this would mean inspection of residents' private homes if they want to sell a pet,
I would presume. I thought, from prior discussions, that the Council DIDN'T intent to do something so
onerous and such an invasion of privacy. As we know, there are some animal "stakeholders," who
oppose "breeders," who even oppose people owning intact animals who might make groundless
complaints. This provision, without clearer definition, is an invitation to invasion of privacy in one's home,
seemingly taking away constitutional protections if one has animals.
I forwarded the draft ordinance language to AKC, and they share my concerns. Here is AKC's response.
---Harriet. PS since such short notice and not sure which email you'd see first, sorry about sending to all
three addresses.
Dr. Seldin,
Thank you for passing this along for my review. I see several issues of concern in this proposed draft and
I will highlight them below. As you will see, our main concerns stem from vagueness and a lack of
definitions.
It is important to recall that current Section 6.01.010 FF defines a "pet seller" as anyone who sells more
than two dogs and/or cats in Chula Vista in a 12-month period." This low threshold means that a person
who has sold a single litter of puppies or kittens is considered to be a pet seller. As Chula Vista does not
current have any kennels, we are talking solely about pet owners in a residential setting.
Section A - It is unclear what it means to "have adequate quantities of food and supplies," means. Are
pet sellers required to keep a minimum number of servings on hand at any given time? What happens if
they are "inspected" on a day when they intend to purchase animal food? Most similar ordinances and
laws simply require that animals be provided adequate food.
Section B - It would be beneficial for "clean and sanitary" to be further defined. If an inspection is
conducted and the dog owner has simply not had the opportunity to clean up a single day's feces that
was deposited overnight or while the owner was at work, is that grounds to a violation? Will the standards
in 6.04.110 be used?
Section D. -Are bowls acceptable? They cannot be "secured" so this is unclear. Given that these are
family pets in residential homes this is important as this provision appears more suited to a commercial
kennel situation.
Sections E. and F -Again these regulations seem more suited to a commercial kennel that to pet sellers
as defined. If these are pet animals which enjoy access to both the house and yard, how is this judged. It
would be more appropriate to say that animals need to have access to fresh air, have the opportunity for
exercise and be provided adequate protection from extreme weather as appropriate to the breed. (For
example, a Labrador Retriever needs more exercise than a Pug and a Siberian Husky is comfortable is
much cooler temperatures than a Shih Tzu.)
Section H -Neither "primary enclosure" nor "kennel house" are defined. Does a dog have to spend a
minimum amount of time in an enclosure for it to qualify? Additionally, Section 6.08.103 is written for
commercial kennels not for residential homes.
Section I -This demonstrates a lack of understanding about canine biology. Females have heat cycles
and are only capable of becoming pregnant when they are "in heat." It is not reasonable to require that
pet owners in a residential setting keep their intact dogs apart at other times.
Section K - AKC strongly encourages dog owners to permanently identify their dogs, but we believe that
the decision to utilize a microchip, collar tag or tattoo should be left to the owner's discretion.
Section L - It is unclear how exactly a per seller is defined for purposes of this ordinance. For example, if
I breed a litter of puppies which is whelped in January and then sold in March and a complaint is filed in
December, am I still considered a "pet seller" and subject to inspection even if the puppies are no longer
on the premises? What do the complaints need to be in regards to? What will be the criteria of the
inspection? Does it only encompass those items listed in Section 6.30.040, the full animal control code or
other items not mentioned? What will be the result of an unsatisfactory inspection -warning, fine,
confiscation of animals? What will the scope of the inspection be given that these are private residences?
Will residents be expected to allow animal control (or another agency) unfettered access to all areas of
their homes? What happens if a resident refuses to allow inspectors to enter? What happens if the
resident is not home?
Given the breadth of these concerns, it would seem to be a more prudent course of action to redraft this
proposal with more specific details so that pet sellers, residents and animal control can all have a clear
understanding of what is required and how it will be enforced.
Sarah Sprouse
Legislative Analyst
AKC Government Relations Department
doglaw .akc.org
8051 Arco Corporate Dr. Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27617
919-816-3720
.~~ I~ i ir~ic~~ ~- %~%~'~~ ira~.~
/~ T~~ ~7
From: drhfseldin
Monday, September 10, 2012 11:57 AM
To: s.castaneda; Linda Wagner
Cc: rledford
Subject: Re: Meeting with Deputy Mayor Castaneda
Deputy Mayor Castaneda and Ms. Wagner:
I just learned that there is an extensive dog/cat agenda item for the CV Council meeting this Tuesday,
Sept 11th. Do you know about this? I was not included in the list of people notified. Apparently, city staff
sent a notice on September 7th. I think this was generated by staff. The proposal includes mandatory
microchipping of all pets sold (which should be voluntary, not mandatory), and INSPECTION of pet
sellers, based on complaints, with no details on what sort of complaints would result in an inspection, no
detail on rights of homeowners in responding to complaints. Since there are no commercial kennels that I
know of in CV at present, this would mean inspection of residents' private homes if they want to sell a pet,
I would presume. I thought, from prior discussions, that the Council DIDN'T intent to do something so
onerous and such an invasion of privacy. As we know, there are some animal "stakeholders," who
oppose "breeders," who even oppose people owning intact animals who might make groundless
complaints. This provision, without clearer definition, is an invitation to invasion of privacy in one's home,
seemingly taking away constitutional protections if one has animals.
I forwarded the draft ordinance language to AKC, and they share my concerns. Here is AKC's response.
---Harriet.
Dr. Seldin,
Thank you for passing this along for my review. I see several issues of concern in this proposed draft and
will highlight them below. As you will see, our main concerns stem from vagueness and a lack of
definitions.
It is important to recall that current Section 6.01.010 FF defines a "pet seller" as anyone who sells more
than two dogs and/or cats in Chula Vista in a 12-month period." This low threshold means that a person
who has sold a single litter of puppies or kittens is considered to be a pet seller. As Chula Vista does not
current have any kennels, we are talking solely about pet owners in a residential setting.
Section A - It is unclear what it means to "have adequate quantities of food and supplies," means. Are
pet sellers required to keep a minimum number of servings on hand at any given time? What happens if
they are "inspected" on a day when they intend to purchase animal food? Most similar ordinances and
laws simply require that animals be provided adequate food.
Section B - It would be beneficial for "clean and sanitary" to be further defined. If an inspection is
conducted and the dog owner has simply not had the opportunity to clean up a single day's feces that
was deposited overnight or while the owner was at work, is that grounds to a violation? Will the standards
in 6.04.110 be used?
Section D. -Are bowls acceptable? They cannot be "secured" so this is unclear. Given that these are
family pets in residential homes this is important as this provision appears more suited to a commercial
kennel situation.
Sections E. and F -Again these regulations seem more suited to a commercial kennel that to pet sellers
as defined. If these are pet animals which enjoy access to both the house and yard, how is this judged. It
would be more appropriate to say that animals need to have access to fresh air, have the opportunity for
exercise and be provided adequate protection from extreme weather as appropriate to the breed. (For
example, a Labrador Retriever needs more exercise than a Pug and a Siberian Husky is comfortable is
much cooler temperatures than a Shih Tzu.)
Section H -Neither "primary enclosure" nor "kennel house" are defined. Does a dog have to spend a
minimum amount of time in an enclosure for it to qualify? Additionally, Section 6.08.103 is written for
commercial kennels not for residential homes.
Section I -This demonstrates a lack of understanding about canine biology. Females have heat cycles
and are only capable of becoming pregnant when they are "in heat." It is not reasonable to require that
pet owners in a residential setting keep their intact dogs apart at other times.
Section K -AKC strongly encourages dog owners to permanently identify their dogs, but we believe that
the decision to utilize a microchip, collar tag or tattoo should be left to the owner's discretion.
Section L - It is unclear how exactly a per seller is defined for purposes of this ordinance. For example, if
I breed a litter of puppies which is whelped in January and then sold in March and a complaint is filed in
December, am I still considered a "pet seller" and subject to inspection even if the puppies are no longer
on the premises? What do the complaints need to be in regards to? What will be the criteria of the
inspection? Does it only encompass those items listed in Section 6.30.040, the full animal control code or
other items not mentioned? What will be the result of an unsatisfactory inspection -warning, fine,
confiscation of animals? What will the scope of the inspection be given that these are private residences?
Will residents be expected to allow animal control (or another agency) unfettered access to all areas of
their homes? What happens if a resident refuses to allow inspectors to enter? What happens if the
resident is not home?
Given the breadth of these concerns, it would seem to be a more prudent course of action to redraft this
proposal with more specific details so that pet sellers, residents and animal control can all have a clear
understanding of what is required and how it will be enforced.
Sarah Sprouse
Legislative Analyst
AKC Government Relations Department
doglaw(a~akc.org
8051 Arco Corporate Dr. Suite 100
Raleigh, NC 27617
919-816-3720
---- drhfseldin
> Deputy Mayor Castaneda and Ms. Wagner-
> Thank you so much for taking the time to meet with Kristine Alessio and me
today for an in depth discussion on animal issues, specifically dogs and
cats.
Thanks for your offer to keep us up to date as things may change, so that we
have the opportunity for input if there are to be any changes to Chula
Vista's
animal ordinance.
> Thanks again,
> Harriet
> Harriet Seldin
> drhfseldin