Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildlife Feeding Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Laguna Woods council introduces broad wildlife‑feeding ordinance with limited camera use
Summary
The Laguna Woods City Council introduced and amended an ordinance that broadly bans actions likely to provide sustenance to coyotes, rodents or vermin and adds enforcement tools including temporary, property‑owner‑authorized surveillance with limited retention; penalties and state-law alignment were discussed. (First reading introduced; ordinance returns for adoption in March.)
The Laguna Woods City Council on Feb. 18, 2026, introduced an ordinance that expands the city’s prohibition on feeding wildlife and allows new enforcement tools aimed at reducing coyote encounters. Councilmembers amended language governing the use of surveillance technology and approved the measure on first reading.
The staff presentation described a rise in coyote incidents and other wildlife issues and said the current municipal code section 5.20.07, adopted in 2000, was difficult to enforce. The proposed law would broadly prohibit “any action that is reasonably likely to provide sustenance” to coyotes, rodents, vermin or other wildlife, while listing exemptions for indoor pet bowls, garden centers and managed bird feeders when maintained to avoid attracting rats.
Staff said the change aligns city code with relevant California Fish and Wildlife provisions, which could help the city coordinate enforcement with state agencies. Examples included leaving uncooked chickens or soup bones in common areas, leaving pet food bowls unattended outdoors, and allowing fallen fruit to rot on ground surfaces.
The ordinance also includes new enforcement options. Staff outlined an administrative citation process (city fines starting at $100 for a first violation, $200 for a second and $500 for third and subsequent violations within 12 months) and said persistent nonpayment or repeat violations could be addressed through civil or public nuisance procedures or referred for state enforcement where appropriate.
Several residents objected to surveillance-camera language as potentially intrusive. One public commenter said, “There’s nothing nuanced about surveillance cameras,” warning of scope creep. Staff responded that the ordinance’s revised language requires property‑owner authorization before installing cameras on private property and bars direct linkage to law‑enforcement databases. The council added a retention limit for recorded footage: seven calendar days unless federal or state law or an actual or pending enforcement action requires longer retention.
Council members who have been briefed on repeated coyote attacks argued the new enforcement tools are needed to secure voluntary compliance and protect residents and pets. Councilmember comments emphasized education and outreach as a first step, with targeted enforcement reserved for repeat, documented violations.
Next steps: the ordinance was introduced on first reading as amended; staff said the item will return for formal adoption at the council’s March meeting, and if adopted then it would take effect 30 days later.
