LLASCC Position Papers
On December 14, 2020, we sent the following letter to: Parks Director Jeff Gaffney, members of the County Parks Commission, Animal Services staff, and County Information Officer Jason Hoppin.
Blueprint for a Press Release Concerning County Leash Laws
prepared by Brocklebank and Lewis
on behalf of Leash Law Advocates of Santa Cruz County
14 December 2020
prepared by Brocklebank and Lewis
on behalf of Leash Law Advocates of Santa Cruz County
14 December 2020
The Problem Recognized
At their December 8, 2020 meeting County Parks Commission members, along with Parks Director Jeff Gaffney and the public in attendance, discussed the renewed and increasing public concerns about the lack of safety for people and leashed dogs in county parks. This lack of safety is due to dog owners who violate County Code Chapter 10.04.100(A), which states:
"Dogs shall be licensed in accordance with the animal ordinance (Chapter 6.08 SCCC). A person may bring and maintain in any park, exclusive of golf courses, a dog or cat, if such dog or cat is kept on a leash or chain not to exceed six feet in length and under immediate control of its owner or custodian, or upon written permission of the Director when required for authorized park programs, or when dogs are in special areas of parks designated and posted by the Park Director as dog exercise and training areas (dog parks) and so long as the regulations of the Park Director with respect to the use of such areas are followed."
In addition to the County Parks ordinance, there is a countywide leash law prohibiting unleashed dogs to run loose when away from their premises. One Parks commissioner suggested that due to COVID many more people are taking dogs to parks for exercise. It was also suggested that in response to stay at home regulations there were now many new pet owners who also did not know about the various leash laws.
Signage
Although there is some signage at county Parks facilities, albeit visually underwhelming, plus signage at parks in the various incorporated cities, many dog owners do not notice existing signs or simply choose to ignore them, thus jeopardizing other park users, especially children and the elderly. Some residents now no longer go to parks or county beaches because of the proliferation of unleashed dogs. This creates an exclusion of some residents, disenfranchising them, thus countering County Parks goal of inclusiveness.
At the 12/8 meeting residents called for larger, better signage, located inside the parks, that clearly states All Dogs Must Be Leashed, where such signs will be a clear reminder to dog owners to obey the leash law. That new signage should include the words safety for all, to emphasize the reason for the ordinance, just as signs about mask wearing in stores emphasize safety. Safe parks is a key goal of the Department. One example of an additional new sign location is the pavilion and playground area of Jose Avenue Park.
Education
Education is often offered as a good way to help solve the problem of chronic violation of the countywide leash laws. Parks use seems to have increased during the pandemic and unless the winter weather becomes too inclement, parks will continue to be places of respite and exercise for residents weary of coronavirus restrictions. Therefore, education is more timely than ever.
Anecdotal stories about unleashed, uncontrolled dog attacks on other dogs and dogs knocking down children and adults alike abound on social media. Unfortunately these never make the local news. Calling Animal Services or law enforcement - after the fact - has been described as useless. One exception is that when the Animal Control officers field manager learned of problems at Felt Street
Park, he increased patrols there. However this is a hit and miss strategy that deserves as much proactive education as the Parks Department can muster.
One of the best ways to educate the public is to have the same clear message broadcast as widely as possible. Therefore we propose that Parks Director Gaffney take leadership in having a Press Release published that is co-signed by the following, at a minimum:
County of Santa Cruz Director of Department of Parks, Open Spaces and Cultural Services
City of Santa Cruz Parks Director
County Animal Shelter General Manager
County Sheriff Department
Law Enforcement agencies of the Cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville
We think Director Gaffney should take the lead and can work with the County's Information Officer, Jason Hoppin, in making this timely Press Release a reality. The press release should be issued first well before the end of the year, if possible. If not, then quarterly for a full year beginning in January 2021.
The press release should be sent to media publications such as:
Print Media
Santa Cruz Sentinel - santacruzsentinel.com
Santa Cruz Local - santacruzlocal.org
Good Times - goodtimes.sc
Times Publishing Group - tpgonlinedaily.com
(Aptos Times, Capitola Soquel Times and Scotts Valley Times)
Santa Cruz Patch - patch.com/california/santacruz
Lookout Santa Cruz - lookout.co/santacruz
Scotts Valley Press Banner - ttownmedia.com/ - press_banner
San Lorenzo Valley Post - slvpost.com
Pajaronian - pajaronian.com
At their December 8, 2020 meeting County Parks Commission members, along with Parks Director Jeff Gaffney and the public in attendance, discussed the renewed and increasing public concerns about the lack of safety for people and leashed dogs in county parks. This lack of safety is due to dog owners who violate County Code Chapter 10.04.100(A), which states:
"Dogs shall be licensed in accordance with the animal ordinance (Chapter 6.08 SCCC). A person may bring and maintain in any park, exclusive of golf courses, a dog or cat, if such dog or cat is kept on a leash or chain not to exceed six feet in length and under immediate control of its owner or custodian, or upon written permission of the Director when required for authorized park programs, or when dogs are in special areas of parks designated and posted by the Park Director as dog exercise and training areas (dog parks) and so long as the regulations of the Park Director with respect to the use of such areas are followed."
In addition to the County Parks ordinance, there is a countywide leash law prohibiting unleashed dogs to run loose when away from their premises. One Parks commissioner suggested that due to COVID many more people are taking dogs to parks for exercise. It was also suggested that in response to stay at home regulations there were now many new pet owners who also did not know about the various leash laws.
Signage
Although there is some signage at county Parks facilities, albeit visually underwhelming, plus signage at parks in the various incorporated cities, many dog owners do not notice existing signs or simply choose to ignore them, thus jeopardizing other park users, especially children and the elderly. Some residents now no longer go to parks or county beaches because of the proliferation of unleashed dogs. This creates an exclusion of some residents, disenfranchising them, thus countering County Parks goal of inclusiveness.
At the 12/8 meeting residents called for larger, better signage, located inside the parks, that clearly states All Dogs Must Be Leashed, where such signs will be a clear reminder to dog owners to obey the leash law. That new signage should include the words safety for all, to emphasize the reason for the ordinance, just as signs about mask wearing in stores emphasize safety. Safe parks is a key goal of the Department. One example of an additional new sign location is the pavilion and playground area of Jose Avenue Park.
Education
Education is often offered as a good way to help solve the problem of chronic violation of the countywide leash laws. Parks use seems to have increased during the pandemic and unless the winter weather becomes too inclement, parks will continue to be places of respite and exercise for residents weary of coronavirus restrictions. Therefore, education is more timely than ever.
Anecdotal stories about unleashed, uncontrolled dog attacks on other dogs and dogs knocking down children and adults alike abound on social media. Unfortunately these never make the local news. Calling Animal Services or law enforcement - after the fact - has been described as useless. One exception is that when the Animal Control officers field manager learned of problems at Felt Street
Park, he increased patrols there. However this is a hit and miss strategy that deserves as much proactive education as the Parks Department can muster.
One of the best ways to educate the public is to have the same clear message broadcast as widely as possible. Therefore we propose that Parks Director Gaffney take leadership in having a Press Release published that is co-signed by the following, at a minimum:
County of Santa Cruz Director of Department of Parks, Open Spaces and Cultural Services
City of Santa Cruz Parks Director
County Animal Shelter General Manager
County Sheriff Department
Law Enforcement agencies of the Cities of Capitola, Santa Cruz, Scotts Valley and Watsonville
We think Director Gaffney should take the lead and can work with the County's Information Officer, Jason Hoppin, in making this timely Press Release a reality. The press release should be issued first well before the end of the year, if possible. If not, then quarterly for a full year beginning in January 2021.
The press release should be sent to media publications such as:
Print Media
Santa Cruz Sentinel - santacruzsentinel.com
Santa Cruz Local - santacruzlocal.org
Good Times - goodtimes.sc
Times Publishing Group - tpgonlinedaily.com
(Aptos Times, Capitola Soquel Times and Scotts Valley Times)
Santa Cruz Patch - patch.com/california/santacruz
Lookout Santa Cruz - lookout.co/santacruz
Scotts Valley Press Banner - ttownmedia.com/ - press_banner
San Lorenzo Valley Post - slvpost.com
Pajaronian - pajaronian.com
Radio Stations
KSCO KSQD KZSC |
Television Stations
KSBW KION |
The press release should include both parks and county owned beaches in its message, to make it clear that both are included. It would also be instructive to mention State Parks properties within the county as well, lest there be any confusion. Collaboratively, we are willing to review any draft of the press release before it is issued, to assure it is clearly written so as not to be confusing to the public.
We close by reiterating that a zero tolerance policy of enforcement of the leash law is the only proven method of decreasing violations of the leash laws of Santa Cruz County by dog owners. We also know that education can work for some dog owners and therefore must be one of the tools in the toolbox for providing safety for the public. The Parks new AmbassaDog takes time and money. We ask for the same amount of time and money spent to create the press release we have described. And we ask that the press release be serious, not cute, as safety is serious business.
Sincerely.
Jean Brocklebank
Michael Lewis
Leash Law Advocates of Santa Cruz County
We close by reiterating that a zero tolerance policy of enforcement of the leash law is the only proven method of decreasing violations of the leash laws of Santa Cruz County by dog owners. We also know that education can work for some dog owners and therefore must be one of the tools in the toolbox for providing safety for the public. The Parks new AmbassaDog takes time and money. We ask for the same amount of time and money spent to create the press release we have described. And we ask that the press release be serious, not cute, as safety is serious business.
Sincerely.
Jean Brocklebank
Michael Lewis
Leash Law Advocates of Santa Cruz County
Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting
Oral Communications
5 August 2019
Oral Communications
5 August 2019
Included in the Powers and Duties of your Commission as established by its enabling legislation, as well as in your bylaws, is this: "Advise the Board of Supervisors and the Department of Parks, Open Space and Cultural Services on the preservation of the historic, cultural and natural resources of the County ..."
At the June 3rd Commission meeting, we explained to you the natural resources problems at Scott Creek Beach. We requested the matter be placed on the August 5th agenda as a study session and that each Commissioner be given a copy of the 1996 USFWS Biological Opinion to review well before the Commission meeting. Our goal was for a Commission vote to advise the Parks Director to begin a process that leads to the implementation of the Biological Opinion, complete with a schedule and work plan.
The BO was required for the County to create the visitor access infrastructure it first proposed in 1994. That agreement contained specific mitigation management actions, including Snowy Plover nesting site protections and restoring over three acres of coastal strand and dune habitat.
It is difficult to see evidence at Scott Creek Beach of actions agreed upon in the BO. We're sure there are many reasons for this, none of which are acceptable. Parks must make sure it has a budget to meet its official responsibilities.
This is serious business. County Parks has a responsibility to follow though with its original agreement with USFWS. This is why the Commission must discuss this important matter and act on its findings.
On November 5, 2015 Parks applied to the County Fish and Wildlife Advisory Commission for a $2,000 grant for an Informational & Interpretive Kiosk at the access point at the beach. We have a copy of that application. While well-meaning, as seen in the application's description of signage "to provide visually compelling and easily understood information about species protection, and in particular how dogs (especially off leash dogs) are harmful to the resident Snowy Plovers," unfortunately the application was apparently drafted without knowledge of the BO. Also apparently without knowledge of the collaborative Where Can I Take My Dog County brochure (also available online) that includes Scott Creek Beach as a place where Dogs Are Not Allowed. Period.
The result is there is no signage at Scott Creek Beach that says Dogs Are Not Allowed. In fact, it is even worst that that. The Plover informational sign installed there (with the grant funds) contradicts the prohibition. One sentence reads "Disturbance from people and dogs has significantly reduced the number of Snowy Plover at this beach" and the very next sentence states "Please be considerate and keep your dog on a leash at all times."
Once again, we ask that this matter be placed on the October 7 Commission meeting, as a serious study session.
Jean Brocklebank
Michael Lewis
At the June 3rd Commission meeting, we explained to you the natural resources problems at Scott Creek Beach. We requested the matter be placed on the August 5th agenda as a study session and that each Commissioner be given a copy of the 1996 USFWS Biological Opinion to review well before the Commission meeting. Our goal was for a Commission vote to advise the Parks Director to begin a process that leads to the implementation of the Biological Opinion, complete with a schedule and work plan.
The BO was required for the County to create the visitor access infrastructure it first proposed in 1994. That agreement contained specific mitigation management actions, including Snowy Plover nesting site protections and restoring over three acres of coastal strand and dune habitat.
It is difficult to see evidence at Scott Creek Beach of actions agreed upon in the BO. We're sure there are many reasons for this, none of which are acceptable. Parks must make sure it has a budget to meet its official responsibilities.
This is serious business. County Parks has a responsibility to follow though with its original agreement with USFWS. This is why the Commission must discuss this important matter and act on its findings.
On November 5, 2015 Parks applied to the County Fish and Wildlife Advisory Commission for a $2,000 grant for an Informational & Interpretive Kiosk at the access point at the beach. We have a copy of that application. While well-meaning, as seen in the application's description of signage "to provide visually compelling and easily understood information about species protection, and in particular how dogs (especially off leash dogs) are harmful to the resident Snowy Plovers," unfortunately the application was apparently drafted without knowledge of the BO. Also apparently without knowledge of the collaborative Where Can I Take My Dog County brochure (also available online) that includes Scott Creek Beach as a place where Dogs Are Not Allowed. Period.
The result is there is no signage at Scott Creek Beach that says Dogs Are Not Allowed. In fact, it is even worst that that. The Plover informational sign installed there (with the grant funds) contradicts the prohibition. One sentence reads "Disturbance from people and dogs has significantly reduced the number of Snowy Plover at this beach" and the very next sentence states "Please be considerate and keep your dog on a leash at all times."
Once again, we ask that this matter be placed on the October 7 Commission meeting, as a serious study session.
Jean Brocklebank
Michael Lewis
County Parks and Recreation Commission
3 June 2019
Oral Communications
Statement by Jean Brocklebank
3 June 2019
Oral Communications
Statement by Jean Brocklebank
On April 17 we explored Scott Creek Beach. We found no signage prohibiting pets from the beach, as required by the 1996 Biological Opinion agreement with the USFWS. Although the beach was virtually empty at 3:00 pm, we did discover dog footprints on several stretches of the beach. We saw no evidence of Snowy Plovers.
The 1996 BO agreement was required for the County to create the visitor access infrastructure it proposed in 1994. That agreement contained specific mitigation management actions, including major Snowy Plover nesting site protections and restoring and protecting over three acres of coastal strand and dune habitat (of the County's total of 8 acres).
Meanwhile USFWS designated Scott Creek Beach as critical habitat for Snowies in 1999. This is serious business. County Parks has a responsibility to follow though with its original agreement with USFWS. Apparently Point Reyes Bird Observatory, now known as Point Blue, which accompanied Fish & Wildlife and County Parks on a site visit prior to the BO, has all but given up trying to get the County to implement its official agreement.
On May 8, I emailed Jeff and inquired if the prohibition of pets at Scott Creek was still Parks policy. He responded - that was his understanding but upon a cursory review of Parks rules and regulations he could not find the prohibition. He added that he knew that Parks had signs in place at one time and he would research this further.
I also asked Jeff if he had a copy of the Biological Opinion for this County Beach. And if not, I could send it to him. He asked for it and I sent it. But its more than signage of the prohibition of dogs on the beach that concerns us.
We think the BO has fallen through the crack over that past 20 years. There is no evidence of actions agreed upon in the BO. We're sure there are many reasons for this, none of which are acceptable. Parks must make sure it has a budget to meet its official responsibilities. We have constantly requested sufficient budget from the Board of Supervisors to allow Parks to finance its legal obligations. We'll do so again at the upcoming budget hearings.
Meanwhile, tonite we're here to request that this Commission schedule an agenda item on Scott Creek Beach for its August meeting. Commissioners can study the Biological Opinion ahead of time and be prepared to discuss its requirements with the goal being a Commission vote to recommend to the Parks Director that he begin a process that leads to the implementation of the Biological Opinion, complete with a schedule and work plan.
The 1996 BO agreement was required for the County to create the visitor access infrastructure it proposed in 1994. That agreement contained specific mitigation management actions, including major Snowy Plover nesting site protections and restoring and protecting over three acres of coastal strand and dune habitat (of the County's total of 8 acres).
Meanwhile USFWS designated Scott Creek Beach as critical habitat for Snowies in 1999. This is serious business. County Parks has a responsibility to follow though with its original agreement with USFWS. Apparently Point Reyes Bird Observatory, now known as Point Blue, which accompanied Fish & Wildlife and County Parks on a site visit prior to the BO, has all but given up trying to get the County to implement its official agreement.
On May 8, I emailed Jeff and inquired if the prohibition of pets at Scott Creek was still Parks policy. He responded - that was his understanding but upon a cursory review of Parks rules and regulations he could not find the prohibition. He added that he knew that Parks had signs in place at one time and he would research this further.
I also asked Jeff if he had a copy of the Biological Opinion for this County Beach. And if not, I could send it to him. He asked for it and I sent it. But its more than signage of the prohibition of dogs on the beach that concerns us.
We think the BO has fallen through the crack over that past 20 years. There is no evidence of actions agreed upon in the BO. We're sure there are many reasons for this, none of which are acceptable. Parks must make sure it has a budget to meet its official responsibilities. We have constantly requested sufficient budget from the Board of Supervisors to allow Parks to finance its legal obligations. We'll do so again at the upcoming budget hearings.
Meanwhile, tonite we're here to request that this Commission schedule an agenda item on Scott Creek Beach for its August meeting. Commissioners can study the Biological Opinion ahead of time and be prepared to discuss its requirements with the goal being a Commission vote to recommend to the Parks Director that he begin a process that leads to the implementation of the Biological Opinion, complete with a schedule and work plan.
LLASCC Proposal for Off-Leash Areas
Submitted to Supervisor John Leopold
Forwarded to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
15 January 2013
Who We Are
Leash Law Advocates of Santa Cruz County LLASCC (pronounced Lassie) http://llascc.weebly.com/
LLASCC represents a diversity of residents from throughout Santa Cruz County. We are dog owners, foster dog owners, former dog owners, and those with no dogs. We support animal welfare, including domestic and wild animals and we support and regulations that foster such welfare. We consider the current county leash law to be the best means to insure the welfare of dogs, public safety and protection of the environment.
We support County Animal Services in the myriad ways they work tirelessly to manage an almost out of control proliferation of domestic animals in the County, especially dogs and cats, whose numbers increase daily. We support their continued enforcement of the County leash ordinance, to provide for public safety and the welfare of all dogs, in all public places (streets, parks, the beach). We support adequate funding so they may do their jobs. To this end, we support increased focus on getting dogs licensed, since less than 15% of dogs in the county are licensed, leaving most pet owners as part of the problem and not contributing to a solution.
We oppose the establishment of off-leash hours at County beaches and support, instead, additional fenced dog off-leash play areas, where appropriate.
The Animal Services Authority Board Recommendation
LLASCC wholeheartedly supports the ASA recommendation for off-leash dog play areas, passed unanimously by its Board of Directors on 13 August 2012, after two separate public hearings and four hours of testimony. The ASA Board realized that it is not in the business of land use planning and was therefore not equipped to consider a proposal for off- leash hours at local beaches. In its recommendation, sent to the Chair of the County Board of Supervisors on 15 October 2012, the ASA Board wisely reiterated exactly the purpose of the Animal Shelter's mission; that is "to provide animal rescue, regulation and humane care that protect the health, public safety and welfare of people and animals in Santa Cruz County."
Since the ASA Board is a Joint Powers Authority and serves the County of Santa Cruz, City of Santa Cruz, City of Scotts Valley, and the City of Watsonville, with representatives from each of the participating jurisdictions, their unanimous vote is particularly meaningful.
Specifically, the ASA Board vote was on the following motion that (emphasis added):
- reaffirms our continued commitment to current leash laws as stated in the County’s code;
- supports the designation and maintenance of off-leash areas where they are enclosed or otherwise fenced or confined to effectively ensure public safety as well as address land use requirements and environmental safeguards;
- makes it clear that ASA has no jurisdiction regarding the designation of these off- leash areas and that we take no position on designating specific off-leash areas within their jurisdictions but that we request that at an appropriate time, that the jurisdictions consider the possibility of examining enclosed or otherwise fenced or confined off- leash areas in the future which recognize public safety, environmental well being and the well being of the animals.
Off-Leash Hours at County Beaches
An organized group of dog owners is lobbying Santa Cruz County government to allow dogs to run off-leash on County beaches. In response to renewed enforcement of long-standing County dog leash laws, some dog owners are demanding special consideration and exception from leash laws to allow them to let their dogs run loose on County beaches.
Challenges to Allowing Off-leash Hours on County Beaches
There exists a body of law that must be obeyed in order for any proposed amendments to the current County dog leash ordinance to move forward. The pertinent laws consist, at a minimum, of:
1. Current County Code: Title 6.12.020 and 6.12.080 (enforced by the County)
2. The Local Coastal Program (LCP) of the County's General Plan, (overseen by the CA Coastal Commission)
3. The California Coastal Act
4. The National Marine Sanctuary Act (enforced by NOAA and the CA Dept. of Fish & Game.)
5. The Federal Endangered Species Act (enforced by the US Fish & Wildlife Service)
6. A considerable portion of the beach from 19th to 26th Avenue consist of private property extending to the Mean High Tide Line.
1. Leash laws for dogs in Santa Cruz County are specified in Title Six, Sections 6.04 to 6.24 in Santa Cruz County Code. (See Section 7, Applicable City, County, State and Federal Laws)
County Code is very specific in not allowing dogs off-leash anywhere in the County, at any time. In order to allow off-leash dogs on County beaches, the County would have to amend Section 6.12 to provide for specific exceptions. Such an amendment would provide argument for weakening County Code to allow off-leash dogs to run toff-leash throughout the County at any time. Such an exception would become a precedent that could be used to further weaken the leash law.
2. The County's Local Coastal Program (LCP) of its General Plan directs the County to “Enforce leash laws to the fullest extent possible.” In some cases, dogs may be prohibited from beach areas designated as Sensitive Habitat, leashed or not (5.3.2).
Without an amendment of its LCP, the Board of Supervisors may not legally change its current on-leash ordinance with regard to County beaches. Since wildlife of the MBNMS is not static, the entirety of the Sanctuary water/land interface is wildlife habitat that requires protection (Objective 5.1). (See Section 7, Applicable City, County, State and Federal Laws)
4. Santa Cruz County beaches to the Mean High Tide Line are part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, (See Section 7, Applicable City, County, State and Federal Laws) and, as such, are subject to restrictions on wildlife harassment in United States Marine Sanctuaries. (See Section 7, Applicable City, County, State and Federal Laws)
Allowing dogs to run loose on County beaches enables disturbance of wildlife, which is specifically forbidden by federal law. National Marine Sanctuary guides for public use of beaches within National Marine Sanctuaries specifically address problems caused by allowing dogs to run free within the Sanctuaries.
Wildlife and pets don’t mix
"Wild animals can injure and spread diseases to pets, and in turn, pets can harm and disturb wildlife. For example, wild animals recognize dogs as predators and quickly flee when they see or smell dogs. If you are traveling with a pet, always keep them on a leash and away from areas frequented by marine wildlife.
"The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is home to endangered and threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act. Enforcement of both federal and state Endangered Species laws in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game."
From the National Marine Sanctuaries web page: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/protect/oceanetiquette.html
5. On March 13, 2013, the US Fish and Wildlife Service issued its final ruling on Critical Habitat for the federally endangered Tidewater Goby. This listing includes Corcoran Lagoon, and designates the beach from the lagoon to the Mean High Tide Line, from 19th to 23rd Avenue as Critical Habitat. (See Section 7, Applicable City, County, State and Federal Lws).
This means that the Corocoran Lagoon beach is designated as Sensitive Habitat under the County’s General Plan and LCP, and as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat under the California Coastal Act.
The LCP states: “Sensitive habitats shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values; and any proposed development within or adjacent to these areas must maintain or enhance the functional capacity of the habitat.” (See Section 7, Applicable City, County, State and Federal Laws)
6. The beach from 24th Avenue to Moran Lake Beach is divided into private lots that extend to the Mean High Tide Line, separating the Moran Lake Beach from Corcoran Lagoon Beach. The County of Santa Cruz may not declare private property as a public use area for off-leash dogs.
A proposal to designate off-leash dog hours on County beaches is not a simple issue. The considerations are complex. It will take a lot of time and money from an already stretched County budget in order to create legally sanctioned off-leash use of the beaches.
To change the current ordinance and the LCP component of the County's General Plan would require, at a minimum, the following:
1. An initial environmental impact assessment (EA) of the proposed leash law amendment that must be rigorous, not perfunctory. Such an EA would no doubt lead to a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA because of the endangered species habitat at the beach and also because of the cumulative impact of creating precedent setting use that may well spread up and down the coast of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary.
2. An application for amending the LCP, from the CA Coastal Commission, which may initiate a requirement for a development permit because of an increase in the “intensity of use.”
3. An Incidental Take Permit application to either the CA DF&W and/or the USFWS.
Keep in mind that the following subjects are not relevant in either an EA or an EIR and will not be included in either:
How much we love our dogs. How much dogs need exercise. How much dog owners will benefit mentality, emotionally, or physically. Whether or not dog owners are a “special interest group.”
However, the following would be required in either an EA and/or an EIR:
1. Alternative analysis of off-leash play areas at County inland parks that can meet the objectives of the proposed project.
2. Mitigation of continued harm to Snowy Plover habitat.
3. Mitigation of continued harm to Tidewater Goby habitat.
3. An assessment of the cumulative impact of creating off-leash dog parks at beaches of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary other than those currently proposed
4. Description of endangered species and their habitats including the impacts of current off-leash dog use.
5. Description of anticipated further habitat degradation due to the proposed LCP amendment.
LIGHTHOUSE FIELD BEACH RESCUE, v. CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, et al., 05 C.D.O.S. 7063 , August 10, 2005 established the requirement for a CEQA Environmental Impact Report in the City’s attempt to institute off-leash dog hours at Lighthouse Field State Beach. (See Section 7, Applicable City, County, State and Federal Laws)
LLASCC Summary/Recommendations
Since dogs running off-leash pose a threat of harassment to marine wildlife, including state and federally listed endangered and threatened species, on beaches bordering on the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, we recommend that the County not allow any dog off-leash hours on County beaches. Such a sanctioned activity contradicts state and federal laws and long established Santa Cruz County Code. Granting exception for off-leash dogs on County beaches would place the County in opposition to state and federal regulatory agencies.
We do support the establishment of off-leash dog areas in existing inland parks, as analyzed in this proposal. These areas would be fenced, with an entrance gate, thus assuring safety for both dogs and their owners as well as other park users.
Dog owners can already use the beaches 365 days a year, at all hours of the day, if their dogs are leashed. We think that time and funds would be better spent on enhancing single- use dog play areas in existing inland County parks, scattered throughout neighborhoods where people and dogs live.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Lewis Jean Brocklebank
Leash Law Advocates of Santa Cruz County
Leash Law Advocates of Santa Cruz County Testimony to
County Parks and Recreation Advisory Commission
June 10, 2013
One task of government is to balance conflicting desires in public spaces, sometimes referred to as the commons. To this end, governments have created a body of law to regulate human activities and to guide local agencies in regulating development in public spaces, for the common good.
In reading the Staff Report for your consideration tonight, LLASCC is pleased to see that Staff has addressed the same body of law about which we have spoken at two previous public hearings and which is the subject of our January 15 proposal.
LLASCC wholeheartedly supports the Staff Report before you, in its entirety.
In addition we would like to add an important piece of information for your consideration.
Since the LLASCC proposal was first submitted on January 15, 2013, the US Fish and Wildlife Service published its designation of Critical Habitat for the federally endangered Tidewater Goby. Included in the Fish & Wildlife designation of Critical Habitat is an area that encompasses Corcoran Lagoon and its lagoon outflow to the ocean, including all of the beach from 20th to 23rd Avenues. Please see page two for the designated boundary. This is the core area of the LOOLA proposal for off-leash hours on the beach between 20th and 26th Avenues.
This Critical Habitat designation changed the status of this beach under the County’s General Plan and Local Coastal Program to “Sensitive Habitat," which must be “protected against any significant disruption of habitat values.”
Although the public response from one off-leash dog advocate was "they're just little fish," it is the risk of extinction not the size of the species that matters under the law.
Dogs are now banned at Scott Creek Beach (critical habitat for the endangered Western Snowy Plover). The US Fish & Wildlife Service’s 2007 Recovery Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover, Section D. 5. b. ii., cites extensive evidence documenting the adverse effects of off-leash dogs on shorebird viability.
In light of the Critical Habitat designation for the Tidewater Goby at Corcoran Lagoon, the question before the County now really becomes whether or not to allow dogs at all on the Corcoran Lagoon and adjacent beaches, not one of allowing dogs off leash. At a minimum, to address its responsibility under the Endangered Species Act, until the County determines whether Tidewater Goby Critical Habitat at Corcoran Lagoon, plus the documented presence of nesting shorebirds, requires a complete ban on dogs on this beach, the County must not promulgate a policy change to allow off leash hours as proposed.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2011–0085; 4500030114]
RIN 1018–AX39
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Tidewater Goby
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical habitat for the tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 12,156 acres (4,920 hectares) in Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, California, fall within the boundaries of the critical habitat designation.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 8, 2013.
SC–6: Corcoran Lagoon
SC–6 consists of 28 ac (11 ha). This unit is located in Santa Cruz County, approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) east of the City of Santa Cruz. This unit consists of 1 ac (less than 1 ha) of State lands, 6 ac (2 ha) of local lands, and 21 ac (8 ha) of private lands. SC–6 is located 4.0 mi (6.4 km) south of Moore Creek (SC–5), and the unit is separated from the nearest extant subpopulation to the south, in Moran Lake (not designated as critical habitat), by 0.7 mi (1.1 km).
Leash Law More Pertinent Than Ever
Some have said that the County laws regarding off-leash dogs are outdated and should be amended to reflect current public attitudes with regard to domestic pets. These County laws were written decades ago in response to clearly perceived threats posed by unrestrained dogs to public safety, to other domesticated animals and to wildlife. In the ensuing years, the human population of the County has grown from 84,000 to more that 260,000 residents, with the dog population blooming to more than an estimated 50,000 animals. Tourist visitation has increased significantly, including an increase in numbers of visitors bringing their dogs to the beach to run off-leash.
This burgeoning population has resulted in increased conflicts among humans, dogs off-leash, leashed dogs and wildlife. County leash laws are not outdated, they are more pertinent than ever and must be maintained to deal with increasing conflicts in shared public spaces.
Access to shared public space is the right of all people. Is it wise to promulgate a policy that says that some must stay away from the beach at certain times of the day, a policy that disenfranchises some people in order to benefit others? Such a policy would essentially create a "sacrifice zone" where public safety, the well-being of alls dogs and protection of the environment would be officially set aside.
Our Request of the Commission
In summary, strong County leash laws are required to adequately address conflicts over differing desires for use of public spaces, including County beaches. First and foremost this Commission has a responsibility to provide safe recreational opportunities for people (especially the more vulnerable, e.g., children, elderly). The beach area is not an appropriate public space to allow off-leash dogs due to inherent threats from unrestrained dogs to public health and safety in public spaces, and to sensitive habitat and species, including designated Critical Habitat for federally endangered species. The complex multi-jurisdictional regulatory environment of the California coast precludes any unilateral declaration by local agencies allowing off-leash dogs on the beach and would require extensive time and resources to legally permit such activity.
LLASCC proposes that the Parks and Recreation Commission take the following actions:
1) Forward the Animal Services August 2012 recommendations to the Board of Supervisors with your advice to accept them in their entirety.
2) Recommend that the Board of Supervisors not allow off-leash dogs on County beaches, to protect public health and safety, to protect other leashed dogs, and to protect sensitive habitats and species.
Respectfully submitted by
Michael Lewis and Jean Brocklebank
on behalf of LLASCC (http://llascc.weebly.com/)
SC–6 consists of 28 ac (11 ha). This unit is located in Santa Cruz County, approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) east of the City of Santa Cruz. This unit consists of 1 ac (less than 1 ha) of State lands, 6 ac (2 ha) of local lands, and 21 ac (8 ha) of private lands. SC–6 is located 4.0 mi (6.4 km) south of Moore Creek (SC–5), and the unit is separated from the nearest extant subpopulation to the south, in Moran Lake (not designated as critical habitat), by 0.7 mi (1.1 km).
Leash Law More Pertinent Than Ever
Some have said that the County laws regarding off-leash dogs are outdated and should be amended to reflect current public attitudes with regard to domestic pets. These County laws were written decades ago in response to clearly perceived threats posed by unrestrained dogs to public safety, to other domesticated animals and to wildlife. In the ensuing years, the human population of the County has grown from 84,000 to more that 260,000 residents, with the dog population blooming to more than an estimated 50,000 animals. Tourist visitation has increased significantly, including an increase in numbers of visitors bringing their dogs to the beach to run off-leash.
This burgeoning population has resulted in increased conflicts among humans, dogs off-leash, leashed dogs and wildlife. County leash laws are not outdated, they are more pertinent than ever and must be maintained to deal with increasing conflicts in shared public spaces.
Access to shared public space is the right of all people. Is it wise to promulgate a policy that says that some must stay away from the beach at certain times of the day, a policy that disenfranchises some people in order to benefit others? Such a policy would essentially create a "sacrifice zone" where public safety, the well-being of alls dogs and protection of the environment would be officially set aside.
Our Request of the Commission
In summary, strong County leash laws are required to adequately address conflicts over differing desires for use of public spaces, including County beaches. First and foremost this Commission has a responsibility to provide safe recreational opportunities for people (especially the more vulnerable, e.g., children, elderly). The beach area is not an appropriate public space to allow off-leash dogs due to inherent threats from unrestrained dogs to public health and safety in public spaces, and to sensitive habitat and species, including designated Critical Habitat for federally endangered species. The complex multi-jurisdictional regulatory environment of the California coast precludes any unilateral declaration by local agencies allowing off-leash dogs on the beach and would require extensive time and resources to legally permit such activity.
LLASCC proposes that the Parks and Recreation Commission take the following actions:
1) Forward the Animal Services August 2012 recommendations to the Board of Supervisors with your advice to accept them in their entirety.
2) Recommend that the Board of Supervisors not allow off-leash dogs on County beaches, to protect public health and safety, to protect other leashed dogs, and to protect sensitive habitats and species.
Respectfully submitted by
Michael Lewis and Jean Brocklebank
on behalf of LLASCC (http://llascc.weebly.com/)
Copyright © 2017 LLASCC. All rights reserved.