CC SR 20170321 02 - Barking Dog Noise Complaints OrdinanceRANCHO PALOS VERDES CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 4/4/2017
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business
AGENDA DESCRIPTION:
Consideration and possible action to determine if barking dog noise complaints should
be included in the proposed Citywide Noise Control Ordinance (Case No. ZON2017-
00015).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Review Los Angeles County Animal Control's process for administering the City's
regulations pertaining to barking dog noise complaints pursuant to RPVMC
Section 6.04.060 (Animal Control - Disturbing the Peace Prohibited); and,
(2) Direct Staff to continue contracting with Los Angeles County Animal Control for
administration of the City's Animal Ordinance, and do not include barking dog
noise complaints in the proposed Citywide Noise Control Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City currently contracts with Los Angeles County Animal
Control to implement the City's Animal Ordinance (Title 6), including disturbances
related to barking dogs, and costs associated to these contracted services are funded
through the FY16-17 budget under the Public Safety program. Continued services will
not increase current budgeted costs.
Amount Budgeted: $80,000
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): 101-1025-421-32-00
ORIGINATED BY: Leza Mikhail, Senior Planner s:t'
REVIEWED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, Director of Community Development<
APPROVED BY: Doug Willmore, City Manager, lo -I-%
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. RPVMC Title 6 (Animals) (page A-1)
B. Public Comments (page B-1)
All previous Staff Reports, Meeting Minutes, and public comments on this topic can be
found on the City's website via the October 18, 2016, January 17, 2017, and February
21, 2017 City Council Agenda at http://www.rpvca.gov/772/City-Meeting-Video-and-
Agendas
1
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
On October 18, 2016, the City Council initiated code amendment proceedings to add a
chapter to Title 9 (Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare) of the Rancho Palos Verdes
Municipal Code (RPVMC) to include a Citywide Noise Control Ordinance. On January
17, 2017, the City Council directed Staff to prepare a hybrid ordinance that included
both reasonableness and specific decibel levels as measurement standards.
On February 21, 2017, the City Council reviewed a list of potential items to be included
and exempted from a Citywide Noise Control Ordinance. That evening, the City Council
directed Staff to bring back a report, at a duly notice meeting, to discuss barking dog
noise complaints, and whether such complaints should continue to be enforced by Los
Angeles County Animal Control, or be included in the proposed Citywide Noise Control
Ordinance and enforced by City's Code Enforcement Division.
On March 2, 2017, a public notice announcing tonight's agenda item was mailed to
interested parties who previously submitted comments regarding the Citywide Noise
Control Ordinance. Additionally, the public notice was sent to "Breaking News" listsery
subscribers and posted on the City's Facebook and Nextdoor pages. The public notice
was also published in the Peninsula News on March 2, 2017. All public comments
received as a result of the public notice are attached to this report (Attachment B).
Citv's Existina Municiaal Code
RPVMC Title 6 (Animals) establishes the general provisions for animal control within the
City (Attachment A). Title 6 adopts an amended version of Title 10 (Animals) of the Los
Angeles County Code, and also adopts provisions that are specific to the City.
RPVMC Section 6.04.060 prohibits disturbance of the peace caused by animals through
"persistent sound, cry or other noise." More specifically, the City's current codes states
the following:
6.04.060 - Disturbing the peace prohibited.
A. No person shall permit any animal that is kept or maintained upon
premises owned, occupied, or controlled by such person to emit any
persistent sound, cry, or other noise which disturbs the peace, quiet,
and comfort of any residential neighborhood.
B. For the purpose of this section, "persistent sound, cry, or other
noise" means any sound, cry, or other noise which is of such a
magnitude as to be obnoxious to a person of reasonable
sensitivities.
2
Los Angeles County Animal Control Process
The City does not currently enforce complaints related to barking dogs, but instead
contracts with Los Angeles County Animal Control (LACAC) for this service. LACAC
currently enforces complaints regarding barking dogs as follows:
1. Complaint received
2. Abatement Notice(s)/Letter(s) mailed (both complainant and dog owner notified)
3. If not resolved after 2 weeks, Officer sent into the field to make in-person contact
and monitor. Officer issues additional Abatement Notice with signature of
receipt required. With this step, a mediation request form is sent out to
complainant to file with the Department Consumer Affairs for mediation process.
4. If no resolution is achieved through mediation, a report to the District Attorney is
prepared. This report requires a petition from neighbors.
5. Fines are assessed after mediation (rare).
In preparing this report, Staff learned that LACAC is amending their enforcement
procedures for barking dogs due to the length of time it currently takes to gain
compliance. The new process under consideration is intended to reduce the amount of
time to reach compliance and abate the barking dog noise complaint. This process may
require a person who complains to complete an affidavit that they agree to appear in
court should it become necessary. If an affidavit is filed, LACAC will then immediately
issue an administrative citation/fine. LACAC believes that this new administrative
process will reconcile the time efficiency complaints received from the public. At this
time, LACAC expects to launch this new procedure by the end of the year.
If the City were to assume regulation of barking dog noise complaints through the
proposed Citywide Noise Control Ordinance, Staff would likely adopt a procedure
similar to the County's. However, to administer this procedure, it is likely to require
additional Staff and City Attorney time, including the possibility of increased personnel.
This would result in increased costs to the City for an additional Code Enforcement
Officer, and increased costs in the City Attorney's budget for abatement and other
related legal proceedings (these are costs are currently absorbed by LACAC budget).
Furthermore, City Staff would have to be properly trained to enforce barking dog
complaints, which would also be an additional cost to the City. Thus, Staff believes that
this option is not optimal for the City at this time.
Given the forgoing discussion and the fact that LACAC is close to implementing an
amended procedure, Staff recommends not including barking dogs in the proposed City
Noise Control Ordinance or assuming the enforcement of barking dog noise complaints
to the City's Code Enforcement Division at this time. Staff will work closely with LACAC
and monitor the new administrative citation process, once implemented, to ensure that
efficient response times and successful abatement are achieved. A follow-up report will
be brought back to the City Council for review a year after the new procedure is
implemented.
3
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternatives are available for the
City Council's consideration:
1. Direct Staff to include barking dog noise criteria in the proposed Citywide
Noise Control Ordinance and assume the enforcement of barking dog
complaints by the City's Code Enforcement Division. This alternative will
likely result in a similar process that exists with LACAC, and will require
additional Code Enforcement Division staffing.
2. Initiate code amendment proceedings for Title 6, Section 6.04.060
(Disturbing the Peace Prohibited), and provide Staff with direction
regarding possible amendments to the City's code for continued LACAC
enforcement.
11
Title 6 - ANIMALS
Chapters:
Chapter 6.04 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sections:
6.04.010 - County animal control ordinance adoption.
Title 10, Animals, of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and in effect on May 1, 2014, is hereby
adopted by reference as the Animal Control Ordinance of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes with the following
exceptions: Sections 10.04.040, 10.08.230, 10.12.075, 10.12.180, 10.12.190, 10.20.010, 10.20.011, 10.20.020,
10.20.030, 10.20.040, 10.20.050, 10.20.060, 10.20.070, 10.20.110, 10.20.130, 10.20.140, 10.20.150, 10.20.160,
10.20.170, 10.20.180, 10.20.190, 10.20.200, 10.20.210, 10.32.010, 10.84.010 and 10.84.020.
A copy of Title 101 Animals, of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended and in effect on May 1, 2014,
has been deposited in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and shall at all times be
maintained by the city clerk for use and examination by the public.
(Ord. 479 § 1, 2008: Ord. 411 § 1, 2004: Ord. 365 § 1, 2001: Ord. 337 § 1 (part), 1998: Ord. 88 § 1 (part), 1977)
(Ord. No. 488, § 1, 6-2-09; Ord. No. 557, § 1, 7-29-14)
6.04.020 - Amendments to the city's animal control ordinance.
A. Sections 10.04.040, 10.08.230, 10.12.075, 10.12.180, 10.12.190, 10.20.010, 10.20.011, 10.20.020,
10.20.030, 10.20.040 10.20.050, 10.20.060, 10.20.070, 10.20.110, 10.20.130, 10.20.140, 10.20.150,
10.20.160, 10.20.170, 10.20.180, 10.20.190, 10.20.200,10.20.210, 10.32.010, 10.84.010 and 10.84.020 of
the city's animal control ordinance are hereby amended to read as follows:
10.04.040 Interpretation of language.
A. The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future, the present.
B. Each gender includes both genders.
C. The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular.
D. For purposes of the application of this chapter in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, the terms
"unincorporated area" and "unincorporated county" are hereby deleted and are replaced with "City of
Rancho Palos Verdes."
A-1
Section 10.08.230. Unlicensed dog. "Unlicensed dog means any dog for which the license for the
current year has not been paid, or to which the tag for the current year, provided for in this Division 1,
is not attached."
Section 10.12.075. Incentive programs. The director, at his or her discretion, may offer incentive
programs to encourage compliance with the dog licensing requirements.
Section 10.12.180. Unlicensed dogs or unvaccinated dogs or cats - Right of entry for enforcement. For
the purpose of discharging the duties imposed upon him by this Division 1, the director, in order to
enforce the provisions hereof to take and impound any unlicensed dog or unvaccinated dog or cat, may
enter any real property upon which any dog or cat is kept or harbored or upon which he has reason to
believe any dog or cat is kept or harbored and demand the exhibition by the person owning or having
charge or control of any such dog or cat, the required rabies vaccination certificate, and/or the license
or license tag for such dog for the current year provided for by this Division 1. This section does not
permit any person to enter any private dwelling, except where necessary to rescue an animal.
10.12.190. Refusing to show license or certificate unlawful. Any person upon whom any demand is
made under authority of this Division 1 for the exhibition of any dog or cat rabies vaccination certificate,
or any dog license or tag, who fails or refuses to exhibit the same if he has it in his possession, is guilty
of a violation of this Division 1, which shall be punishable as herein provided.
10.20.010. License tags — Issuance — Fee. Pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30801) of
Division 14 and 14.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code, the director shall issue serially numbered
permanent dog license tags marked with the name of the county of Los Angeles.
10.20.011. License — Issuance by veterinarians and other qualified persons in the City of Rancho
Palos Verdes — Conditions. The director may authorize the issuance of dog licenses, as required by
Section 10.20.010, by persons practicing veterinary medicine in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, or
other persons approved by the director who meet the qualifications established by the department.
Said persons shall transmit records and negotiable papers to the department of animal care and
control at intervals as established by the director, and shall collect and transmit to the director the fee
required by this chapter for the issuance of such licenses. The director may reimburse these businesses
for such fees.
10.20.020. Person deemed custodian when. Any person keeping or harboring any dog for 15
consecutive days shall be deemed to be the custodian thereof and subject to licensing provisions within
the meaning of this Division 1.
10.20.030. License - Required - Costs. Every person owning of having custody or control of any dog
over the age of four months in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes shall obtain a license from the director
for each of such dogs and shall pay the fees for such licenses as set forth in Section 10.90.010.
A-2
10.20.040. Animal facility for dogs—When individual dog licenses are required.
An individual license shall be obtained for each dog when such dog is kept as a pet at an animal
facility and is not kept exclusively in a kennel run or cage.
10.20.050. Exceptions from licensing requirement.
A. The provisions of this Division 1 do not require either a tag or a license for:
1. Any dog found within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes when the owner thereof resides in any
municipality or unincorporated territory within the county, and such dog is wearing or has attached to it
a license tag for the current year issued by such municipality or county.
2. Any dog owned by or in the charge of any person who is a nonresident of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes and is traveling through the City or temporarily sojourning therein for a period of not exceeding
30 days;
3. Any dog brought into the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and kept therein for not to exceed 30 days
for the exclusive purpose of entering the same in any bench show, or dog exhibition, or field trials or
competition;
4. Any dog brought or sent into the City of Rancho Palos Verdes from any point outside thereof for
the exclusive purpose of receiving veterinary care in any dog hospital, in the event that such dog is kept
at all times strictly confined within such hospital;
5. Any dog wearing or having attached to it a license tag for the current year issued by a municipality
within the county or by the county when the owner thereof has, within one year last past, moved his
principal place of residence from such municipality or unincorporated territory of the county to the City
of Rancho Palos Verdes; provided, that such municipality or county similarly exempts from tag and
license requirements dogs wearing current City license tags and owned by persons who have moved
from the City of Rancho Palos Verdes to such municipality or unincorporated territory of the county.
B. Except, that each guard dog found within the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, regardless of where the
owner may reside, must have a dog license issued by the County; and the license tag must be securely
affixed to the dog's collar while it is being used as a guard dog within the City.
10.20.060. Unvaccinated dogs — Licensing permitted when. The director may accept the payment of
the fee for a license tag and a license for a dog who has not been vaccinated as required by Division 1
on condition that the owner of such dog within five days thereafter, have such dog vaccinated and
submit the required veterinarian's certificate to the director. Upon receipt of such certificate, the
director shall issue the license tag and license.
A-3
10.20.070. Unvaccinated dogs —Time limit for vaccination when dog is disabled. A person who
obtains a license without submitting a certificate of vaccination because of the infirmity or disability of
the dog shall, within 10 days after the termination of such infirmity or disability, cause such dog to be
vaccinated as required by Part 2 of this chapter.
10.20.110. License tag — Fee for spayed or neutered animals. Pursuant to Section 30804.5 of the
Food and Agriculture Code, any dog license tag issued pursuant to Section 10.20.030 of this Part 1 shall
be issued for one-half or less of the fee required if a certificate is presented from a licensed
veterinarian that the dog has been spayed or neutered.
10.20.130. Record keeping and procurement of tags and receipts. The director shall procure the
number of license receipts and dog license tags needed each year, and shall keep a register wherein
shall be entered the name and address of each person to whom any dog license tag is issued, the
number of such tag, the date of issuance thereof and a description of the dog for which issued.
10.20.140. License — Vaccination requirements and conditions. The director shall not issue a dog
license unless the applicant exhibits a certificate signed by a veterinarian, licensed either by the state of
California or by any other state to practice veterinary medicine, that:
A. The period elapsing from the date of vaccination with approved rabies vaccine to the date of
expiration of the license being issued does not exceed the time as established by the state; or
B. Such dog should not be vaccinated with rabies vaccine because such vaccination would jeopardize
the health of such dog due to infirmity or other disability, which infirmity or other disability, and the
estimated date of termination thereof, is shown on the face of the certificate to the satisfaction of the
director.
10.20.150. License — Information to be shown on receipt. When the director issues a dog license, he
shall show on the receipt the age of the dog, the date of last vaccination, and, if the license was issued
without proof of vaccination, the reason therefor.
10.20.160. License and License tag — Transfer permitted when — Fee. If, during a license period, a
dog is sold or title to the dog is otherwise transferred to a new owner, such new owner may apply to
the director for a transfer of such dog's tag and license and pay a transfer fee as specified under
Chapter 10.90. Upon receipt of such application and fee, the director shall record the name and
address of the new owner.
10.20.170. Replacement of lost tags. In case any license tag for an individual dog is lost or destroyed,
a duplicate thereof may be procured from the director upon the submission to the director of such
proof as he or she may require and upon the payment therefor as specified under Chapter 10.90.
MA
10.20.180. Tag to be worn by dog. A license tag for an individual dog shall be securely affixed to a
collar, harness or other device which shall at all times be worn by such dog, except while such dog
remains indoors or in any enclosed yard or pen.
10.20.190. Keeping unlicensed dogs prohibited. A person shall not harbor or keep, or cause or permit
to be harbored or kept, any unlicensed dog in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
10.20.200. Counterfeit or imitation tags prohibited. A person shall not attach to or keep upon any
dog, or cause or permit to be attached to or kept upon any dog, any tag provided for in Section
10.20.010 of this chapter except a tag issued for such dog under the provisions of this chapter, or
attach or keep upon or cause or permit to be attached to or kept upon any dog, or make or cause or
permit to be made or have in possession, any counterfeit or imitation of any tag provided for in this
chapter.
10.20.210. Removing tag from collar prohibited. An unauthorized person shall not remove from any
dog any collar or harness or other device to which is attached a license tag, or remove such tag or other
identification therefrom.
10.32.010 Dogs—Running at large prohibited—Exceptions.
No person owning or having charge, care, custody or control of any dog shall cause, permit or allow
the same to be or to run at large upon any highway, street, lane, alley, court or other public place, or
upon any private property or premises other than those of the person owning or having charge, care,
custody or control of such dog, in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, unless such dog is restrained by a
substantial chain or leash not exceeding six feet in length and is in the charge, care, custody or control
of a competent person.
10.84.010 Providing food for certain animals—prohibited. Except as otherwise provided for in Section
10.84.020, no person shall feed or in any manner provide food to any peafowl, crow, pigeon, seagull,
nondomesticated rodent, including tree squirrels or ground squirrels, or to a nondomesticated
mammalian predator, including coyotes, foxes, opossums, skunks and raccoons.
10.84.020 Feeding animals permitted—when. A person may feed or provide food to the animals
specified in Section 10.84.010 in the following circumstances:
A. When the person is the owner of such animal, and such animal is kept under a valid certificate or
permit issued by the State of California Department of Fish and Game;
B. When the person feeds or provides food to a trapped, injured or unweaned animal between the
time when the agency in charge of animal control or its designated agent is notified and is picked up by
said agency.
110
M
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 6.04.010 (County Animal Control Ordinance Adoption), the
city's animal control ordinance is further amended by amending the first paragraph of Section
10.90.010 to read as follows:
"Every person owning a dog over the age of four months shall obtain an annual license and tag for
each such dog; except, there shall be a one-time only fee for registration of discharged military dogs,
for guide dogs or seeing -eye dogs, for signal dogs trained to assist the hearing impaired, for service
dogs trained to perform tasks to assist the physically handicapped, upon payment of the following
fees:"
(Ord. 479 § 2, 2008: Ord. 411 § 2, 2004: Ord. 365 § 2, 2001: Ord. 337 § 1 (part), 1998: Ord. 88 § 1 (part), 1997)
(Ord. No. 488, § 2, 6-2-09; Ord. No. 557, §§ 2, 3, 7-29-14)
6.04.030 - Violations—Penalty.
A. Unless a different penalty is provided for in this chapter, any person violating any provision of the
animal control ordinance is guilty of an infraction that is punishable by:
1. A fine not exceeding $100 for a first violation;
2. A fine not exceeding $200 for a second violation of the same provision within 12 calendar months;
and
3. A fine not exceeding $500 for each additional violation of the same provision within 12 calendar
months.
B. Any person violating any of the following sections, or violating any of the chapters or provisions
referenced in the following sections, is guilty of a misdemeanor that is punishable as provided for in
Section 1.08.010 (Misdemeanors—Infractions—Nuisances) of Chapter 1.08 (General Penalty) of this
code:
Section 10.12.190;
Section 10.12.200;
Section 10.20.280;
Section 10.20.310;
Section 10.28.060;
Section 10.28.280(C);
Section 10.32.020,-
Section
0.32.020;
Section 10.32.070;
Section 10.32.080;
M
Section 10.37.030;
Section 10.37.050(C);
Section 10.37.060(F);
Section 10.40.010;
Section 10.40.040;
Section 10.80.010;
Section 10.86.010;
Any violation of Division 2 of Title 10, which is entitled "Animal Health;"
Any violation of Chapter 10.72 of Title 10, which is entitled "Animal Disease Reports;"
Any violation of Chapter 10.76 of Title 10, which is entitled "Apiaries."
(Ord. 479 § 3, 2008: Ord. 411 § 3, 2004: Ord. 365 § 3, 2001: Ord. 337 § 1 (part), 1998: Ord. 88 § 1 (part), 1997)
(Ord. No. 488, § 3, 6-2-09; Ord. No. 557, § 4, 7-29-14)
6.04.040 - Number of dogs and cats allowed.
No person shall be permitted to keep in excess of three dogs and three cats on any residential lot
within the city.
(Ord. 337 § 2 (part), 1998: Ord. 88 § 1 (part), 1977)
6.04.050 - Animals prohibited on beaches.
No person shall bring onto a beach or into the waters of the Pacific Ocean adjacent to any beach any
cattle, horse, mule, goat, sheep, swine, dog, cat or other animal of any kind.
(Ord. 337 § 3 (part), 1998: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1978)
6.04.060 - Disturbing the peace prohibited.
A. No person shall permit any animal that is kept or maintained upon premises owned, occupied, or
controlled by such person to emit any persistent sound, cry, or other noise which disturbs the peace,
quiet, and comfort of any residential neighborhood.
B. For the purpose of this section, "persistent sound, cry, or other noise" means any sound, cry, or other
noise which is of such a magnitude as to be obnoxious to a person of reasonable sensitivities.
A-7
(Ord. 337 § 3 (part), 1998: Ord. 98 § 1 (part), 1978)
6.04.070 - Interference with the trapping and relocation of peafowl—Prohibited.
No person shall prevent or interfere with the trapping or relocation of peafowl, either on public or
private property, by releasing any captured peafowl or by damaging, disabling or disengaging any peafowl
trap or enclosure.
(Ord. No. 488, § 4, 6-2-09)
Chapter 6.08 - CATS
Sections:
6.08.010 - Registration—System.
The director is authorized to establish a voluntary cat registration system as follows:
A. Upon payment of the fee prescribed in this section, the director shall issue an identification tag to
each cat owner or person having custody or control thereof for each cat, said tag to be worn at all
times by the cat for which issued. Should a cat come into the custody of the director and the cat
has attached a valid identification tag issued by the director, then the director shall within 18
working hours from the time of impounding notify the registered cat owner that the cat is in the
custody of the director.
B. A record of the name and address of the cat owner and a description of the cat, as well as the
identification number assigned thereto, shall be maintained by the director on each cat registration
and such other information that the director may deem proper.
C. The fees for registration of cats shall be the fees which are established by Los Angeles County Code
Section 10.90.010(B).
D. From the effective date of this section, any cat shall be deemed to be stray if found at large off the
property of the owner. The director shall hold such cat for no less than the minimum time
prescribed by law. Each such cat may be impounded, held and disposed of in the manner as
provided under Section 6.04.020 (Amendments to the City's Animal Control Ordinance).
E. An unauthorized person shall not remove from any cat any collar or harness or other device to
which is attached any identification tag issued by the director hereunder or remove such tag
therefrom.
(Ord. 337 § 5 (part), 1998: Ord. 88 § 1 (part), 1977)
6.08.020 - Registration—Voluntary.
W1111111111re
E0KO-1
This chapter is of a voluntary nature and does not require a cat owner to purchase a tag as provided in
this chapter.
(Ord. 337 § 5 (part), 1998: Ord. 88 § 1 (part), 1977)
From:
Josephine Lemus
To:
Leza Mikhail
Subject:
Animal Noise
Date:
Thursday, March 02, 2017 11:45:25 AM
My name is Josephine Lemus, I'm a resident of Palos Verdes Estates. I have no
problem with noise dogs. I have no pets but I will tell you the most of the dogs around
this area don't even bark which I find it to be incredible. I guess animals should also
have a voice and if they need to bark so be.
Thank you
From: R Holderman
To: Leza Mikhail
Subject: Barking dog ordinance change
Date: Thursday, March 02, 2017 8:52:35 AM
Hi,
The city should handle the barking dog problem. L. A. is not responsive to our problems here.
When we had a serious barking dog in P. V. E. the city took care of the issue promptly! Now
that I live in R. P. V. and had a dog barking at all hours I put up with it because I knew L. A.
wouldn't deal with it. When I talked to the owners they felt it was a good alert system! Some
people just don't care..
Thanks, Ron Holderman
From:
Juliette
To:
Leza Mikhail
Subject:
Barking dogs
Date:
Friday, March 03, 2017 12:18:05 PM
Hello,
I just read the e-mail about barking dogs and wanted to give some input.
I've been a dog owner for 25 years and I can assure you that I know what the problem is. The issue is bored,
depressed and lonely dogs. Many people leave their dogs alone at home for 8hrs or more. Worse, some dogs are
"outside only dogs" and regardless of which dog, there isn't enough being done to give them the adequate exercise
and attention needed to be calm at the house. Any stimulation of people walking by, squirrels, etc gives them an
excuse to bark. Some just howl out of loneliness too.
The solution is the following:
1. Hire dog walkers/runners to take the dogs out to fields where they can RUN. Walking a golden retriever or a lab
around the block a few times doesn't cut it. Walking a Great Dane or some small dogs might suffice depending on
their energy level, but medium sized dogs require the most exercise and attention.
2. Providing a LARGE off -leash field with grass to dogs in the 90275 area code is necessary since we don't have
that available to us. We only have Rancho Caninos Dog Park with the wood shavings available to us and it's too
small, thus the reason for dogs fighting since all the dogs come running up to the new dogs entering. These dogs
then become intimidated and dog fights break out. Not to mention the ground makes dogs with long hair filthy and
isn't good for dogs. Dogs need grass and a big field to run on. The size of the Lower Soccer Field at Ladera is
preferable for example.
Hope this gives some insight. Please feel free to share this.
Juliette Phipps (RPV home owner)
From:
Ara Mihranian
To:
Leza Mikhail
Subject:
FW: Noise Ordinance
Date:
Monday, March 06, 2017 8:46:00 AM
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
Gr7Y OF LiRANa 10 R�\LDS\itRDES
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram&ravca.gov
www. rpvca.gov
ADo you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged, confidential and/or
protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity named. Unauthorized dissemination,
distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error, or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender
immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2017 8:15 PM
To: 'Beth Shirley' <dbshirley3@cox.net>
Subject: RE: Noise Ordinance
Hi David,
The Council will be considering noise impacts associated with barking dogs on the March 21st
meeting.
The noise ordinance is still a work in progress, meaning the Council isn't quite ready to adopt an
ordinance.
They are carefully considering all issues and topics before codifying an ordinance.
Ara
From: Beth Shirley [mailto:dbshirley3@cox.net]
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2017 12:55 PM
To: Ara Mihranian <AraM(@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Noise Ordinance
Thanks Ara,
Is the meeting scheduled for 3/21 to approve the items to be included in the ordinance discussed at
last meeting? And if so can the council approve the ordinance at the March meeting?
Once the ordinance is approved by council what is the timing for implementation, when does it
become effective? Staff recommendation is to adopt urgency ordinance immediately which is great,
I'm just not sure what immediately means in terms of timing.
I am pleased to see we can move forward in short term using "reasonableness" standard.
I will plan to attend March meeting.
Thanks for your continued efforts in this regard
Best
David
From: Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraM(@rpvca.gov]
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 8:41 AM
To: Beth Shirley <dbshirley3(@cox.net>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraM(@rpvca.gov>; Leza Mikhail <LezaMPrpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Noise Ordinance
David,
As you observed at the January 17th council meeting, the proposed noise ordinance is a work in
progress and the council's preference is to measure noise by decibels.
Tuesday's meeting, the council will be asked to provide direction on the items to be included in the
noise ordinance.
See you then.
Ara
Sent from my Whone
On Feb 10, 2017, at 12:48 PM, Beth Shirley <dbshirley3(@cox.net> wrote:
Thanks Ara, happy new year to you too.
Thanks for forwarding. I'm pleased to see the adoption of short term solution in
consideration of providing remedy short term while the long term solution is
optimized. I was hoping for more specificity in terms of limits on Db and duration
level, this proposal is more subjective. Upon reading this of course I wondered how the
enforcement officer would interpret our particular situation. That being said I like the
plan of putting short term fix in place, learning from that implementation and using
lessons learned on long term solution.
I will plan to attend the City Council meeting February 21.
Thanks again
From: Ara Mihranian [mailto:AraMPrpvca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2017 9:32 PM
To: Beth Shirley <dbshirley3Pcox.net>
Cc: Leza Mikhail <LezaM(@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Noise Ordinance
Hi David,
Happy new year.
Attached is the January 17th City Council Staff Report on the proposed
noise ordinance.
Please let Leza and I know if you have any comments or questions.
Best,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
<image001 Jpg>
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram&rpvca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
ADo you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error,
or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Ara Mihranian
Sent: Friday, October 14, 2016 2:39 PM
To: 'Beth Shirley' <dbshirley3C@cox.net>
Subject: RE: Noise Ordinance
David,
I will make sure your letter is part of the public record for Tuesday's
meeting.
Let me know if anything else comes up.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
Community Development Director
<image001.jpg>
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228 (telephone)
310-544-5293 (fax)
aram&rovca.gov
www.rpvca.gov
ADo you really need to print this e-mail?
This e-mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may be privileged,
confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error,
or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
From: Beth Shirley [mailto:dbshirley3C@cox.net]
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2016 9:27 PM
To: CC <CCPrpvca.gov>
Cc: Ara Mihranian <AraMC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Noise Ordinance
Dear RPV Mayor Ken Dyda, Mayor Pro Tem Brian Campbell, Council Members Susan M.
Brooks, Jerry V. Duhovic, Anthony M. Misetich,
AN
I would appreciate you taking the time to read the attached letter my wife Beth
and I wrote regarding an issue related to noise. This is our story.
When faced with a noise issue that we could not resolve on our own by way of multiple
attempts to work it out with our neighbors we contacted the city.
Our discovery that RPV did not have a noise ordinance surprised and disappointed us,
we now feel our options are limited to return our street to its once quiet past.
As the letter states we briefly spoke with Councilman Misetich who directed us
to Ara. Ara has kept is informed of progress relating to investigation of ordinances in
surrounding cities.
We understand it is on the agenda for October.
I apologize for lack of signature on letter (our scanner would not cooperate).
I am planning to attend city council meeting on the 18th
Sincerely
David Shirley
From:
Lisa Garrett
To:
Leza Mikhail
Subject:
FW: Public Notice- Code Amendment Chapter 9
Date:
Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:47:31 PM
LG
From: Noel Park [mailto:noelparkone@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 12:40 PM
To: Lisa Garrett <LisaG@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Re: Public Notice- Code Amendment Chapter 9
As I sit here in my dining room listening to a chorus of barking dogs, I applaud the idea of
extending the noise ordinance to include some effective way to gain relief. Barking dogs are
far and away the biggest noise issue in my neighborhood.
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Road
RPV 90275
562-413-5147
On Feb 28, 2017 12:17 PM, "Lisa Garrett" <LisaG&r vca.gov> wrote:
Dear Interested Parties,
You are receiving this notice as a result of written comments to the City on the topic. Please
address all questions and or comments to Sr. Planner. Leza Mikhail.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Rancho Palos
Verdes will conduct a public meeting on Tuesday, March 21, 2017, at 7:00 PM at
Hesse Park Community Building, 29301 Hawthorne Boulevard, Rancho Palos
Verdes to continue the discussion on the following:
CODE AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE RANCHO PALOS VERDES
MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE A CITYWIDE NOISE ORDINANCE
(ZON2017-00015):
• Review Section 6.04.060 (Animal Control - Disturbing the
Peace Prohibited) of the RPVMC to assess the current
regulations and to determine whether changes should be
considered as it pertains to barking dog noise complaints that
is currently administered by the Los Angeles County Animal
•
Control.
The March 21, 2017 City Council Staff Report will be available on the City's website
under 'Current City Council Agenda' (http://www.rpvca.gov) on March 15, 2017.
Staff encourages public comments and attendance at the City Council meeting to
voice comments, concerns or ideas for the Council's consideration. Please note
that written materials, including emails, submitted to the City are public records and
may be posted on the City's website. In addition, City meetings may be televised
and may be accessed through the City's website. Accordingly, you may wish to
omit personal information from your oral presentation or written materials as it may
become part of the public record regarding an item on the agenda. Only those who
have submitted written comments will receive notification of future meetings on this
topic
Inquires and/or comments should be directed Leza Mikhail, Senior Planner, at 310
544-5224 or via e-mail at lezam a&rovca.gov.
Ara Mihranian, AICP
Director of Community Development
NOTE: STATE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65009 NOTICE: If you
challenge this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raises in written correspondence delivered to
the City of Rancho Palos Verdes during the public review period described in
this notice.
LCity of Rancho Palos Verdes
Lisa Garrett
Community Development Department
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
310-544-5228
www.rpvca.gov
IS