Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/07/1998 Study Session 178 CITY OF YAKIMA, WASHINGTON JULY 7, 1998 STUDY SESSION The City Council met in session on this date at 7:30 a.m., in the 2nd Floor Training Room, at the Police Station /Legal Center, 200 South 3rd Street, Yakima, Washington. Mayor John Puccinelli, presiding, Council Members Clarence Barnett, Lynn Buchanan, John Klingele (present after 7:50 a.m.), Mary Place, and Bernard Sims present on roll call. Council Member Henry Beauchamp absent and excused. City Manager Zais; Assistant City Manager Rice; City Attorney Paolella; Jeff West, City Prosecutor; Larry Peterson, Assistant City Attorney; Bert Tabayoyon, Customer Services Manager; Jeanette Nachbar, Animal Control Officer; Heidi Fortier, Animal Control Officer; Marketa George Oliver, Administrative Assistant to the City Manager; and Deputy City Clerk Skovald also present. Discussion Regarding Proposed Ordinance Amending the Municipal Code Relating to Animal Control Enforcement (Pit Bull Dogs) In 1987, with citizens supporting the proposal, the Yakima City Council passed the Pit Bull Ordinance banning the breed from the City. Council Member Barnett and Council Member Buchanan provided a historical perspective about the phenomenon and recalled the reasoning behind the legislation. Council Member Barnett shared his childhood experience about a dog that was not mean and dangerous, but at the same time he did not say that Pit Bulls couldn't be dangerous. Then he questioned if the City is accomplishing anything else with the Pit Bull Ordinance that can't be done with the Dangerous Dog Ordinance. Council Member Buchanan feels the Pit Bull Ordinance has been effective because the number of dangerous incidents involving pitbulls has declined within the City of Yakima since passage of the ordinance. He also recounted several events from that time period involving dangerous situations involving pit bulls, which led to the passage of the Pit Bull Ordinance in the first place. Animal Control Officer Nachbar provided statistics showing the disproportionate numbers of Pit Bulls in Yakima and the ineffectiveness of the existing ordinance to reduce those numbers. There was also discussion about dangerous characteristics associated with the breed along with the rising popularity of other breeds of dogs that possess aggressive, vicious traits. Mr. West explained that under the current law, animal control officers cannot initiate misdemeanor charges, only a police officer can, or an affidavit is filed in lieu of the citation. After a brief discussion about the current law and enforcement of the licensed dog ordinance, Mr. West indicated proposed changes are being prepared to deal with this situation. 179 JULY 7, 1998 - ADJOURNED STUDY SESSION City Prosecutor Jeff West summarized the proposed' revisions to the Pit Bull Ordinance. Notable among the proposed revisions is the removal of bull terriers from the list of dogs banned from the City. Another revision is an amendment requested by the Mayor, which would require the owner of a pit bull to receive a notice and be given a period of thirty days to relocate the animal before impound. The third proposed change includes adding a provision authorizing immediate impound of any pit bull dog found running at large. This provision is already included under any breed of dog found running at large as indicated in YMC Section 6.20.010, but this language would be added to the 30 -day notice requirement language referred to earlier. Mr. West then directed Council's attention to the third possible change concerning proper care of pit bulls while impounded. Mr. West discouraged the Council from accepting this revision because it raises liability issues for the City. He suggested its inclusion in the contract with the Humane Society. After a brief discussion it was the consensus of the Council to not include this revision. There was discussion about the annexation policy's 30 -day effective date and how that relates to owning a pit bull. Mr. West explained the difference between the "dangerous dog" classification and the "potentially dangerous dog" classification. He requested Council's direction concerning these terms, and there was continued discussion about the potentially dangerous dog being subject to quarantine, not impoundment. Dangerous dogs are impounded immediately. After a considerable amount of discussion and debate over the 30 -day proposed revision, the Council came to a consensus concerning the following issues: (1) To impound Pit Bulls running at large, (2) to not include the animal care proposed revision, and (3) to immediately impound potentially dangerous pit bull dogs and not allow aggressive pit bulls to be adopted. It was questionable whether the Council came to a consensus on whether to allow the Humane Society discretion within their policy to allow the non - aggressive pit bull dog found within the city to be put up for adoption with a microchip inserted, instead of destroying the animal. The owner would pay for the microchip to be put in. This issue concluded with discussion on whether to be flexible concerning the 30 -day proposed revision. Two proposed draft ordinances will be brought to the Council for consideration at the next business meeting. One draft will include the current ordinance text and one will include all the proposed revisions including the 30 -day provision. GMA Interim Ordinance City Manager Zais directed attention to the draft Interim Development Ordinance, and there was discussion about "to restore eligibility" language. It was the consensus of the Council to delete that phrase because it is confusing. There was continued discussion about 2 180 JULY 7, 1998 - ADJOURNED STUDY SESSION defining development regulations, which are special rules and regulations and details governing development. The six -month timeframe allowance making this an interim, or temporary, piece of legislation was also discussed. There was also discussion about the issue of conflict between the existing regulations and the regulations currently being written. The public hearing process and the issue of consistency between current regulations and the Comprehensive Plan were also discussed. It was the consensus of the Council to place the set date on the agenda for the public hearing for July 21, 1998 to consider the interim ordinance. There was discussion about a recent State Supreme Court ruling about changes in zoning. Larry Peterson explained the decision was complicated and controversial and involved whether existing legislative actions and development regulations can be changed. This was a fact - sensitive case with complicated controversies. Other Issues Council Member Buchanan asked why does our animal control office keep being relocated further and further from City Hall. He pointed out that they do interact with the public. Assistant City Manager Rice explained there is no room in City Hall, and it is an administrative decision. It is also done for their safety. • It was MOVED BY KLINGELE, SECONDED BY PLACE, TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:05 A.M. The motion carried by a 4 to 2 voice vote; Buchanan and Sims voting nay; Beauchamp absent. READ AND CERTIFIED ACCURATE BY: / / /,- S COUNCIL MEMBER DATE /1 -3- 1 COUNCIL MEM E DATE ATTEST: / CITY CLERK JOHN P CCINELLI, MAYOR Minutes prepared by Deputy City Clerk Skovald. An audiotape of this meeting is available in the City Clerks office. 3