1 David Yakobson
From: Mike Terranova <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 11:09 AM
To: councilmtgitems; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin; Dan Hall; Lana Negrete; Barry Snell
Subject: Public Comment: Consent Item 4B 13-May-25 Meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Councilmembers,
Regarding item 4B: I support most of the proposed Animal Code updates, especially the limits on the number of cats and dogs per dwelling and the important clarification that 15 minutes of intermittent noise (bark, yell, cry) per hour constitutes a violation of the noisy animal ordinance. This will finally bring Santa Monica in line with similar animal control ordinance updates implemented by other neighboring cities over the past decade.
However, the requirement a second household must call PD/Animal Control dispatch within 12 hours to trigger enforcement in noisy animal cases seems arbitrary and unworkable. Chronic intermittent noise issues (often lasting weeks, months, and sometimes even years) rarely allow for such tight coordination between neighbors. Additionally, dispatch may not open a second call if one is already active. Other cities, and even unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, allow written complaint forms to initiate investigations.
Consider removing the 12-hour time requirement and adopting a process similar to that used in unincorporated LA County. Their approach allows residents to submit written complaints, followed by a courtesy notice by Animal Control to the animal owner. If the issue continues, complainants can sign an affidavit, which then allows Animal Control to issue a warning or citation. This step-by-step process provides a lower-cost, less burdensome alternative to citations or formal administrative hearings. These changes would make the ordinance more accessible, by allowing both written and phone complaints, while ensuring fair and effective enforcement for Santa Monica neighborhoods.
Regards,
Mike Terranova
Sunset Park Resident
Item 4-B
May 13, 2025
Item 4-B
May 13, 2025
1 David Yakobson
From: Brian Sweeney <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2025 10:11 AM
To: Lana Negrete; Caroline Torosis; Jesse Zwick; Barry Snell; Dan Hall; Natalya Zernitskaya; Ellis Raskin
Cc: councilmtgitems
Subject: Please Pull Item 4B re: Noisy Animals for Re-Drafting
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Negrete and Honorable City Council Members:
I am writing to request you pull 4B from the Consent Calendar and send it back to the relevant departments (PD and CAO) for re-drafting.
I am well aware that the section of our code re: Noisy Animals (SMMC 4.12.090) needs improvement; I've spoken to multiple Animal Control Officers who have expressed their frustration about how little the code enables them to address excessive barking issues, including for repeat offenders.
However, I don't think the answer is to weaken the code in the way staff is proposing:
"Staff also propose adding language to the code that reads: 'The Animal Control Officer may decline to investigate a complaint for a violation of this section if the City does not receive a second complaint from another household about the same animal within a 12-hour period.”' On multiple occasions, Animal Control Officers have been forced to respond to repeated calls from one reporting party about a particular noisy animal, while not being able to verify a violation has occurred. This provision will assist the Animal Control Unit in preserving staff resources to respond to complaints that are more likely to be valid."
As I understand it (from speaking with Animal Control Officers), the real problem this is trying to address is the following:
--Many if not most excessive barking complaints come in at night. --Animal Control officers are not staffed at night (they usually get off around 6pm I believe) and even though our regular patrol officers are empowered to address animal noise complaints, they either are not interested in doing so or feel they don't have the resources to... --So the call is "held" until the morning when the next Animal Control officer is available. --The Animal Control officer now has to investigate an issue that was occurring the previous night and is of course unlikely to be still happening in the morning. --So they do a needless site visit, and the excessive barking problem remains unaddressed.
Note that this situation -- which I've heard from Animal Control officers happens all the time -- says nothing about the validity of the complaint. But the proposed code change -- instead of addressing the underlying issue of valid complaints not being dealt with -- would instead just enable the City to not address the problem at all. Especially if you're a single household that's being subjected to nightly excessive barking (which could be happening for a million reasons, so the more than one household -- Item 4-B
May 13, 2025
Item 4-B
May 13, 2025
2 can an unhoused person make a complaint?? -- requirement is particularly bizarre). Hopefully, that seems straightforwardly bad to everyone.
A real solution would instead do any or all of the following:
1) Staff Animal Control officers at night. Instead of 6am-6pm shifts, 9am-9pm, or 10am-10pm shifts would be more appropriate for the problems they're dealing with (I've heard this directly from Animal Control officers)
2) Make our regular patrol officers do their job at night and address these complaints instead of leaving them for the next morning.
3) Allow Animal Control officers, for any complaints that truly need to be held, to do investigations over the phone or via email.
And if the answer is that neither #1 nor #2 can happen because of "resources" (though I'm admittedly skeptical looking at the service logs...), then it would be better to just do #3 and still not implement the proposed change so that, when we do have more resources in the future, a future Council doesn't have to go back and change a law that shouldn't have been changed in the first place.
Thank you all for your help.
Best wishes,
Brian Sweeney
Item 4-B
May 13, 2025
Item 4-B
May 13, 2025