Electronic Pet Containment and
Town’s Fence Regulations
Town Council Meeting
August 4, 2026
BACKGROUND
• A resident requested that the Town consider
allowing electronic pet containment systems.
• The request proposed amending Town Code
Section 4.40.005 to recognize underground
electronic fence systems as an approved method
of pet containment.
• Electronic pet containment systems use a buried
wire to establish a containment boundary for
pets.
Current regulations
• State law allows electronic pet
containment systems for ordinary
pets but requires a physical enclosure
for potentially dangerous or vicious
dogs.
Current regulations
• Town Code Section 4.40.005 currently requires
dogs to be on a leash or confined behind a 6-foot
fence.
“(a)The owner or person with the right to
control any dog shall keep such dog under
the owner's own physical restraint by
means of a leash not to exceed six (6) feet
in length, or shall keep such dog confined
behind a fence not less than six (6) feet
high.”
Current regulations
• Town Code Section 29.40.0315 currently requires
fences in the hillside areas not to exceed 6 feet:
(2) In the hillside area:
a. Fences, walls, gates, or hedges
may not exceed six (6) feet.
b. On properties one (1) acre or
greater, perimeter fencing shall be a
wildlife-friendly fence as defined
in section 29.40.0310.
Current regulations
• Hillside properties of one acre or
more must use wildlife-friendly
fencing, creating a conflict with
the 6-foot fence requirement.
Room to Roam Act:
• California law that helps protect wildlife by
requiring cities and counties to consider wildlife
movement and habitat connectivity when
planning new development. The goal is to
reduce habitat fragmentation so animals can
safely travel to find food, water, mates, and new
habitat, especially as climate change increases
pressures like wildfires and drought. The law
took effect on January 1, 2025.
Pros & Cons
Pros
• Resolves conflict between Town Code
Sections 4.40.005 and 29.40.0315
• Supports wildlife movement consistent
with the Room to Roam Act
• Cost-effective option for hillside and largeacreage properties • Works well on large or uneven terrain
where fences are difficult to build
Pros & Cons
Cons
• Electric correction may cause discomfort to
pets
• Does not keep wildlife or stray animals out
• Pets may escape if the system fails or the
collar battery dies
• More difficult for the Town to verify
compliance
California Jurisdictions Allowing
Electronic Pet Containment
• County of San Diego: Recognizes an “electronic
pet containment system” as one method by
which a dog may be effectively controlled, in
addition to voice control or physical restraint.
• City of Del Mar: Incorporates San Diego County
law requiring owners to effectively control dogs
by voice, an electronic pet containment system,
or physical and humane restraint by leash, fence,
or other enclosure.
Local jurisdictions allowing the use of
electric pet containment fences
• City of Salinas: Animals are deemed to be
running at large unless restrained or confined
within an appropriate enclosure, “such as an
electrified fence or an electronic fence.”
• County of Monterey: Recognizes a dog as
confined within a “dog-tight enclosure” where
contained by an “electric or electronic fence.”
Local jurisdictions allowing the use of
electric pet containment fences
• City of Rolling Hills: Expressly permits
confinement of an aggressive animal by “a
fence, electronic fence, running line, pulley,
or trolley system,” or another approved
device.
• Santa Clara County, Los Altos Hills: Working
on wildlife – friendly fencing regulations but
not electronic pet containment
QUESTIONS?