Recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing, and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with Article 5, Section 15061; Declare ordinance amending Title 6 of the Long Beach Municipal Code (“Animals”) to incorporate provisions relating to the number, and maintenance, of household pets that may be kept by a residential household, read the first time and laid over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for final reading;
Report from Development Services, recommendation to receive supporting documentation into the record, conclude the public hearing and find the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Declare Ordinance amending Title six of the Long Beach Municipal Code and Ordinance to remove the provisions that currently regulate the number and maintenance of household pets that may be kept by a residential household. Read the first time and lead over to the next regular meeting of the City Council for Final Reading and adopt a resolution to submit the ordinance amending Title 21 to the California Coastal Commission Citywide. Let me go ahead and get the staff report done. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Christopher Koonce, our planning bureau manager, and Stacy Danes, our manager of Animal Care Services, will be available to give the report. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the Council. This item relates to the larger strategy overseen by Long Beach Animal Care Services to increase adoption of pets. This particular action involves a change to the zoning code to allow the number of pets to be six, where as it was previously four. The zoning code doesn't really have much to do with the animal care services, so this action would also correct that error and move these regulations into the animal section of the municipal code. So with that, that's the summary. We have a longer presentation, if any council member desired to hear that, but this is all that's necessary for the item. Thank you. I know we have the comments in front of us have been submitted. I don't believe there's any verbal public comments from anyone that that's required in this hearing. And so we're going to close the hearing and do some council deliberations. Councilman Bongo, I have a motion and I have a second. So that's. Yes, I have some comments. Initially, when this was brought to the council, it was thought to be a potential in helping us clear the shelters. I heard from the community that potentially they don't want their neighbors to have six pets except for on a case by case basis where we have fosters and other things that are are good performers. And so I'm open to hearing my council colleagues, but I'm also interested in the feedback from this being if this is really necessary at this time. Let me. Okay, Councilman, let me move to our customers in Dallas. But you've made the motion, correct? I did make the motion, but I'm open to changing my motion. I'm just here to listen to the counsel and the input. Other jurisdictions typically do it three dogs, three cats, which therefore could also amount to six animals. But under the way that this is written, someone could theoretically have six cats or six dogs or any other multitude of variances. And I don't know that one. There's a necessity for that at this time. So my inclination would be, and again, I'm open to hearing from my colleagues, my inclination would be to give the ordinance availability , but a process that it needs to be approved on a regular basis by the animal control director. We have so many barking dog complaints in our community and the process to alleviate barking dogs is very burdensome on our neighbors and often causes neighbor disputes. And so I am concerned that there would be right now in neighborhoods, often two dogs get along over a fence. That's fine. One additional dog is brought into the mix and mass pandemonium happens. And now if you could put six animals on one property adjacent to another property with 2 to 3 animals, and you're really talking about potential noise disturbances to the community. And if the barking dog ordinance was easier to enforce, perhaps I'd be more open to this. But our shelter is empty on a case by case basis. If Mustain wants to make those allowances for those that are foster partners and others that are really strong animal owners, great. But we also need to be concerned about animal hoarding and other stories we've heard in the news related to animal neglect. That can happen when people get animals beyond what they can afford or are able to take care of. And then as we are going into an economic downturn, we really need to be cognizant of that. Okay. Thank you for that. I mean, we go to the second. Which customers in Dallas are just. Just go ahead, Councilwoman. Thank you, Mayor. And just to clarify, Councilmember Mongo, are you trying to make an amendment to this? And support. I actually really support the topics that you just brought up right now. I think that that actually needs to be discussed. So I'm supportive of whatever you decide to go with this motion. Okay. Let me just keep going through the queue. Can I. Can can we get a little more, Mr. Modica. I understand that. The breakdown and the number went through a process at animal care. And so I just maybe and that there was a community input and there was a whole outreach process that went out to the rescue groups as to how the number came about. Is it possible for you to give some of that back around or maybe Mr. Gaines, can I. Believe Mr. Stacey Daines, our manager of animal care, is on the phone. So, Stacy, can you can you join us? So. Whoa, whoa, whoa. Give her a call. She's she's here on the phone. We're just probably having technical difficulties getting on. So give us a minute and we'll get Stacy on the phone. All right. I look, we're. Going through the the coolest councilman here. I think some people want to hear the staff report first. But Councilman Pearce. Councilwoman Pierce, you're muted. Open it up over here. Thank you. Wish you can see me, huh? I would like to hear a staff report if the back yet. No. We had somebody calling her to see what's going on with getting her on the line. So I'll say without without the staff report. I do know that this has gone through a process. I so I'm on here and I don't know why I'm not unmuted. Okay. My muted. You're unmuted. Oh yeah. You're up first. Let's go and get your your report. Okay. Thank you, everyone, for being so patient. I apologize. So we did go through a process with our rescue organizations. We also talked in depth about this with our task force. And some of these questions came up. And the concerns, I think, that people have are certainly justified, but they're really not related to the number of animals in a location. And what we're interested in doing is allowing folks to have more animals, of course, that they can reasonably care for. And we have we I think we all probably know somebody that has more than the reported number of animals, and they take excellent care of their pets. And we probably may know or have heard of folks that can't really even care for one animal. So when somebody makes a concern or contact animal control regarding the number of animals at a location, we always deal with the welfare issues first, and that's usually how this enforcement goes. So very rarely do we get a call that just says, you know, a citizen is concerned that, wow, there are six dogs here. So we are addressing there are other ways in our municipal code where we address nuisance issues in barking. So we already have an ordinance for that. And then we also there are already state codes that deal with animal cruelty and neglect. And what we find is that a number doesn't have really anything to do with either one of those things. Certainly they can exacerbate a situation, but they themselves don't necessarily cause them. So we are very much in support of, as are our colleagues in animal welfare, about raising this limit to hopefully enable people to have more animals, hopefully license more pets and hopefully reduce some of the burden in our shelters. All right. Let me go ahead and go to Janine. Thank you, Mary. Thank you, Stacey. I support staff recommendations. I agree from my experience in the animal world that the number of cats is not necessarily I think six six is a manageable number. And to Councilmember Mungo's point, you know, we want to be able to allow people to foster mother cats with their babies and potentially keep them. So we're not putting them back into the system. So while right now we're at a unique moment. I think that the work has been done. The community has been involved in this process. Perhaps there are some other issues that might want to address about how we deal with barking dogs. But my neighbor's barking dog is extremely loud and he's just one dog. So I don't think it's a numbers issue. I think that the community has already spoken. And I would like to ask I'd like to hear from my colleagues, but I definitely would like to keep with the original motion, I need to make a substitute. Then I will. Thank you. Well, is that a substitute? Janine, I'm sorry. Well, she hasn't changed her motion yet. I just think she doesn't want to change it. Then I'll make a change. Let's keep going. Constable Ringo. That's very your. Yeah. I'm sorry. I was disconnected for a little while, so I missed a lot of the conversation. Not sure where we're at right now. Okay. The motion still on the floor as it is, but councilman mongo may make some changes. We're having a discussion about the number right now. Let me go back to counting, among other things up next and then maybe we'll get some clarity. Councilman on go. So appreciate the comments of my council colleagues so far. But the community has not been involved. The animal advocacy groups have been involved. And in my opinion, those individuals and animal advocacy are our best cases of the individuals who would be requesting sick animals. And I'm completely supportive of a robust process that allows for animals. But to say that the community has been involved, there have been no public meetings on that except for this council meeting, a council meeting where the public does not have the ability to come and speak on the item. And so at this time, I cannot be supportive of moving forward without regard for a process. So my motion will be that I support changing of the ordinance with a process that through licensing, the Director of Animal Services has some discretion over allowing multiple animals. So let me give you an example of this. A few months ago, I was at the shelter and I asked, why are all these animals in this particular cage together? And they were all animals from the same home. And in that case. The owner could not take all the animals back because she shouldn't have had that many animals in the first place. And so in that particular case, the Danes stated, okay, well, in this case, we're going to let all the animals go back. You don't have to choose between your animals, but you are not authorized to add any additional animals to the other cases like that. However, we need to be cautious of. Animal care. And there's a very big difference between animal care and animal cruelty and the level of which people believe the animals are part of our family and not property has definitely shifted. I'd love to see the ordinance reflect animals being not referred to and referred to in a more family oriented way. But at this time, I'd like to add to the motion the approval of the ordinance with a process that they would administer. It can be a very easy going process, but a process nonetheless, so that we at least have a catalog of who these individuals are, how many animals they have, that they don't have a barking dog complaint against their property already. Because currently if you have a barking dog complaint, even if it has not been all the way through the process with a certain number of neighbors sign. And yes, that is a process. We have the strictest barking dog complaint of many of the jurisdictions around us, but it is extremely difficult to enforce extremely and it comes into a neighbor to neighbor disputes. So if in the fact that there is a case where a person has several barking dog complaints that have not been able to get through that whole process, and maybe we still maintain the limit of four and four animal I have three animals. It is a lot for a family to take care of. And so I would hope that my colleagues will support a process that's necessary to. Yet the 16. Before I move on, I want to clarify because I think. I think what Stacey's customer is asking for essentially is when come to me, correct me if I'm wrong here, but she's saying that ought to be an automatic a trigger that you can just go up to that number you would need to get approval to go beyond to get to that, not to get above what currently is the number you would need to get essentially a special license or a special approval from animal care to move into at any higher number than what's currently allowable. So you'd still be able to get more animals, but it have to be approved by animal care to make sure that there isn't complaints or issues at that residence. So I think there is definitely could be value in that. And so I captured that. Right, Councilman? Yes, absolutely. Okay. So the motion is to keep the staff recommendation, but it's not an automatic move. You actually have to add, I kind of have an approval by animal care. I think that's the motion that. The motion on the floor. Councilman then mongo. Yes. Thank you there. Okay. And then there's a second councilman's the house the second that I've changed to do it. Yes, I second that. Okay, great. Well, let me move on to council member Austin. Councilman Austin? Yes. Can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you now. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation around this issue. I did have just a couple of quick questions, because one issue that I think I remember brings up a couple of good points. When we define households under this proposed ordinance, the hearing before us, does the household include apartment dwellings, condominiums, townhomes, as well as single family homes with yards? Is there any distinguishing difference in terms of how many pads can be held in type of living quarters? Anybody as city attorney. Has currently dropped it. There's no distinction. Household refers to a family unit, so they could be in any type of dwelling. I think six six pets in tighter living quarters could create a real challenge not only for health and family, but also for neighbors. And so these are. I would love to have animal services director in our department to have some some sort of discretion and in terms of improving that number. With that in mind, in consideration, I think I support the motion or the spirit of the motion before us. And this is I'm open to further comments, but I think what comes out of this is reasonable. Thank you. And I agree, Councilman, I think this is a good kind of compromise. Councilman Mango's motion is some of the concerns. Councilman Pierce. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to ask for clarity of our animal department, if it makes sense. To have it go through them, or does it make sense to have it go through the existing pet owners vet that they use? I just I want to understand the process a little more because I know when we talked about this several months ago, I believe that Ms.. Jane said that this was already something that was done regionally, was the number six. And I think to her point, it was more about this is about animal care. So if it's about animal care with the appropriate person to kind of give the green light, either vet and not animal control and maybe I'm off. And if I'm off, then correct me. I'm just trying to make sure that we we make this an easy process for pet owners and for the city. That's a question for city staff. Thank you, Councilwoman Pierce. So. I think the motion takes us maybe in a little bit different direction of the I think the intent of increasing the number in the ordinance is that we know that most places allow for six pets, some even more than that Sacramento allows, I think, for up to ten. So we know that people do have more than four cats and we know that they do fine with more than four pets. For many people, having a pet is a self-limiting experience anyway. Like, for example, the Councilwoman Mongeau said she has three and that's that's sounds like that was probably her limit. Some other folks have more than that. And, you know, everybody sort of knows their limit. And when we were on to complaints, it's not about the number. It's about what's going on in the home. So if the motion is to take this in a different direction, then perhaps. Perhaps the question then becomes the standard of care as opposed to any number. So if I can take care of 50 animals and not cause a problem for my neighbors, then why shouldn't I be able to have that? Whereas if somebody can't, like I said before, if somebody cannot even care for one animal, then they shouldn't even have the one. So in a sense, numbers are particular, can be arbitrary. So I think maybe that that's an important thing to consider. So we will have folks apply for each additional animal after the four and up to the six. Then I guess my question would be, why stop at the six? Okay. So 20 everybody right now. Thank you. Thank you for saying so to clarify that the motion on the floor is essentially still allowing for six is just putting a process in place. So I just want to make sure that process is not strenuous because I know how important it is that all of our pets are licensed and that we can track that. And so that would be my my suggestion if I were to vote yes on this motion is just that that process is not something that is burdensome on staff. So really, my question is, is this a process that you can handle that will not be burdensome on you? Or would you prefer the process a different way? I think we need to take a look at it. I think I need to involve other department staff in answering that question to know what that process is, simply because that's not a process that exists. And if we are going to be investigating animal control backgrounds for people and their histories. That definitely would be a process. We'd also need to come up with some criteria of what issues are, for example. Are complaints in. And is that a limiting factor? Because do we tell people they can't have certain animals because they have a particular neighbor who has a problem with them and then their issues are really they just don't like that person. So if I don't want you to have another dog because I have a problem with you, I'm just going to call animal control and make a complaint and then make it more difficult for you to make your own personal, private choices for your life. So I think it's a little bit more complex if we're going to talk about our process, but certainly we can explore that. And maybe this is time, maybe we can get some clarity on the motion. I understood. I hear two different things. One is more of a of an investigative process where we're really looking to see are people fit to have animals. What I thought I heard the motion was was more keep the six, but you can go up to four and then you just need to put in a application for I want to go above above six. So I think Stacy is trying to figure out how does she make that decision of who is allowed to go above six. So that is something if that's the intent of the motion, then we would need to figure out how to go to I'm sorry from above for him to go to 4 to 6. And yeah, let me just jump in also. So I don't want to overcomplicate what I think. I think I actually think the motion is, is fairly simple that's on the floor. I think that also it's essentially the staff recommendation with one key difference, which is that instead of I mean, all pets have to be licensed, should be getting licensed anyways. I mean, we know that not everyone does licensing, but that shouldn't there should be licensing. And so I think what the motion is saying is that, yes, you can go to six, but that additional additional pets beyond the four in the process of licensing and getting them approved have to be reviewed by animal care just to make sure that it's not that there isn't complaints or there are other issues. Maybe at that residence, if I needed as much simpler maybe than it is, I could be wrong. That was my impression was that it would be a very simple process, but I have two other people queued up. So Councilman and day has. You, Mayor? Yes, that's the way I understood it also. So I think that keeping it as simple as possible, I think would address both Councilmember Mungo and Councilmember Pierce's concerns in regards to, you know, not necessarily just giving everybody the go ahead to get six and six pets, but also being careful who those people are who who do have six pets and someone that is not being pet friendly wouldn't be able to get those those six. Six Pets Allowance. But then how do you deny that? But also, that may be a little bit more in the staff, some in the staff deciding what what they want to do with that. So, yes, I think that that's the best thing here, is to keep it as simple and clear as possible. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. You impound a large number? Can you hear me now? Yes. Okay. And again, we have a process to apply to be a breeder. We have a process to apply to be a menagerie. There should be a process for pets. I mean, what we're talking about right now is a triplex that have 18 animals. And maybe that's not the greatest idea. And maybe some of the considerations are the number of animals on a property. Because when you're at 18 cats, you're almost at a cat colony now. And so there are different neighborhood impacts when you have multiple homes like that on a street and other things. I'm not prescribing any process at all. It can be as easy and as simple as possible, and we can start that direction. And as it gets further along, if we see issues that come up, then we can. Encourage a more strict process, but a process is outside of the ordinance. The ordinance is simple up to six animals through a process. And then let's just leave that to animal control to come up with that process. Another example is you might have an individual who has multiple off leash dog complaints or multiple fence violations, whether animals get out. Those are be examples of potential things that those things might want to consider as a part of her evaluation process. But again, right now, if you have more animals and you have that issue, we still return those animals with no conditions. And so we just want to give her more tools in the toolbox so if problems arise. But yes, as mayor stated, this is very simple. And I think it's I think it's it's not at all changing the intent of staff in working with the rescue groups, which is to allow folks up to six up to six pets. It just be some process that animal care will come up with. It could be very simple. So I don't really think the intent here has been changed at all in my read of potential negative emotion. Mayor, this mayor. Mayor, this is the the one issue that it does raise is this is a substantial change. It will have to come back for a new first reading if the motion that's on the floor is passed. Staff would have to come up with some sort of criteria for whatever that process would look like. And then this the ordinance would come back for council to review and approve that with the process included. Councilmember Ringa, thank you. So when has the bureaucracy ever been simple? It's you know, it's much more complicated than what it is. It may sound simple, but it's not. You're looking at terms of defining. What would be a good household to have four or six pets. It becomes very subjective at that point. And not only that, but it becomes a point where there are probably some issues related to the property itself in terms of being able to handle it. What if you have an apartment owner who has prepared for what you want? Six. That would not be a very good decision right there. So, I mean, I think that Charlie hit the nail on the head. We're going into a discussion here where we need to revisit the process to ensure that all departments are involved. And I see I see these are the terms being involved in this, in the decision making process as well, in terms of being able to house that many pets in one property. So I'm thinking that we should remain this audience back to animal control and to U.S. attorney for further review. Okay. There's motion on the floor and I'll go do a roll call vote. Go ahead. Adam. Kurt. District one. I. District two, i. District three. High District for. I. District five. I. District six. All right. District seven. I have a question. I sort of made a motion, sort of not we don't get into getting into voting here. My discussion that I was saying was to remand this issue back to the city attorney control, because I see that there are substantial changes here in terms of the motion that has been made, in terms of with changes. So if I have to vote for that, and that's what I want to think, but if I can make that a substitute motion, then I would rather do that. So actually can't smoke, but of course. Yeah. I mean, I think the roll call but I mean the vote has started. There was not a motion that was made. So if you think you need to vote no if you're not. The motions already half way through here so. That that would be a nay. District eight. I. District nine. I emotion carries. Thank you. Next item is hearing 32. Or hearing.