1987 MIN FEB 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Police Chief Connolly referred to a revised draft of the pet limiting ordinance proposed at the last City Council Meeting. Chief Connolly stated the redraft by City Attorney Edwards is in accordance with Council direction. Chief Connolly stated he would like to address some of issues of concern to staff. Chief Connolly stated the first issue is that of limiting the number of pets to six (6) in any combination. Issue two is the grandfather clause which poses three problems: (1) It does not solve the existing problem of too many dogs. (2) The time and expense required for staff to license these dogs would be quite high. (3) How to identify existing pets. How will you know down the road the dog is really the same one grandfathered in. Issue three concerns the show or hobby breeders. It appears that they require six (6) months to take care of litters, disposing thereof. The permit process in this instance should be done away with. Issue four concerns vicious dogs. Chief Connolly said in checking with surrounding cities he could not find a particular ordinance addressing pit bulls; however, in discussion with the City Attorney, he is comfortable with the ordinance already in place which addresses vicious dogs. Moved by Councilwoman Cisneros, seconded by Councilman Rios to approve the ordinance with the changes from four to six months under lines 13 and 14 and to eliminate lines 16 through 20. Mr. Loren R. Chiever, 1294 Holly Avenue, Colton, stated he felt the ordinance limiting the cats and dogs to six (6) in any combination — was very fair. The six months time for disposal of litters is fair. He is concerned with deleting the grandfather clause. Mr. Chiever asked how many people really have more than six dogs, not many in his opinion. Mr. Chiever felt the grandfather clause should be left in and that any— one who has three complaints filed against them should be held to answer to the public nuisance law. Mrs. Carolyn Anderson, 941 Latham Street, Colton, speaking on behalf of the San Bernardino Humane Society, stated they are in favor of the grand— father clause. They have received calls from elderly people who cannot part with their pets; it would be hard for them to choose which ones to get rid of. Councilwoman Garcia stated the Council should adopt an ordinance that is enforceable. Councilwoman Garcia asked if a deletion from line 12, to 21 could be made. Councilwoman Garcia stated she understood the Council did not want the grandfathering clause in and so instructed the staff; therefore, Council is adopting the ordinance deleting line 12 to 21. Councilwoman Garcia asked if this was correct. Councilman Rios stated that was not the motion. City Attorney Edwards said the present it would also change the number in line are two things: Change the number four 12 to 21, that is the present motion by seconded by Councilman Rios. 3 motion would do that and more; 10 from four to six — so there to six in line 10, and strike Councilwoman Cisneros and