From: Garcia, Marisa
To: City Council DL
Cc: Hess, Justin; Padgett, Courtney; McDougall, Joseph H.; Smith, Kristen; Castaneda, Brenda; Johal, Ray Subject: Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Animals Proposed Ordinance- Response to Vice Mayor"s Questions Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 4:22:46 PM
Attachments: image002.png
Council,
Vice-Mayor Perez had some questions regarding this evening’s Public Hearing concerning the establishment of an ordinance on potentially dangerous and vicious animals. I believe the entire Council could benefit from having this information as you consider this item.
Is the process the same for all situations, including those that occur in public vs private property?
Yes, the process is the same for all situations. There is no differentiation between where this occurs, although if an occurrence happens on private property, there may be an exception that applies for trespass or defense of the property/owner.
How does the 18 we have had since 2020 compare with #s in neighboring cities?
Staff has reached out to Pasadena, Glendale, and LA City to gather this information but are awaiting a response.
What is the longest and shortest stay for dogs in this situation under the current process?
For Potentially Dangerous dogs, usually shortest stay is 10 days if being quarantined at the Animal Shelter and owner agrees to requirements in Potentially Dangerous Dog agreement and the area where the dog will be kept is secure. Depending on the circumstances, dog may also be allowed to complete quarantine at home.
If the dog bite is severe and the Vicious Dog designation is being sought, the longest wait we have had so far is 44 days. In this case, the owner wanted a hearing but decided while waiting for the hearing date to euthanize the dog and the hearing never occurred.
What are the criteria that would require a dog designated as potentially dangerous to have insurance coverage?
The process would be dependent upon the factual scenario of the case, the likelihood that future similar acts could occur, and the severity of any injuries. The determination would be left to the hearing officer to determine if insurance conditions would be appropriate.
What are the differences between our ordinance and Pasadena’s?
The City of Pasadena’s ordinance focuses on multiple acts committed by dogs and deems certain qualifying acts as a Nuisance. The Pasadena ordinance does not specifically address potentially dangerous animals/dogs. The proposed ordinance is specific to acts that constitute potentially dangerous/vicious designations under the law. Burbank is specifically addressing a concern that has arisen due to multiple potentially dangerous/vicious animal cases since 2020.
In developing the proposed ordinance, Staff considered multiple municipal codes from neighboring jurisdictions to formulate the language regarding potentially dangerous or vicious animals. The proposed ordinance models the Food and Agricultural Code and LA County’s Ordinance. This is all in an effort to prevent future severe injuries from occurring in the community.
I hope you find this information helpful. Staff will be happy to address additional questions at this evening’s meeting.
MARISA GARCIA
Parks and Recreation Director
(818) 238-5310 office | via Teams
[email protected]
BurbankCA.gov/ParksandRecreation
City Council Meeting
Meeting Time: 02-27-24 16:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
City Council Meeting 02-27-24
16:00
62 19 13 5 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
.
Agenda Item: eComments for 7. Introduction of an Ordinance for Potentially Dangerous and Vicious Animals - Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department
Overall Sentiment