Temple City adopts LA County animal-control rules on potentially dangerous and vicious dogs

Temple City’s City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance July 21 that incorporates by reference Los Angeles County’s animal-control provisions governing “potentially dangerous” and “vicious” dogs.

The ordinance — moved by Council Member Stirkus and seconded and approved by roll call — brings the city’s municipal code into alignment with Title 10 of the Los Angeles County Code and sets a process for administrative hearings before a neutral third-party hearing officer. Community Development Director Reimers told the council the proposal is intended to create a clear, consistent process for staff and residents when dog-bite or animal-behavior complaints arise.

“Because this is the public hearing ... the recommendation tonight is to conduct the public hearing, waive further reading, and then adopt the ordinance,” Reimers said during his presentation.

Under the adopted approach, Inland Valley Humane Society or the city would investigate complaints, collect evidence and present findings to an independent hearing officer who can impose conditions on animal keeping — such as fencing changes, signage, additional insurance, leashing or muzzling requirements — depending on the severity of the incident. Reimers said those administrative findings can then be appealed to superior court rather than to the council.

Nicole Bresciani of Inland Valley Humane Society described benefits of the hearing process for residents and the animal-control partner, saying the process can be “less costly than going straight to superior court” and that the humane society can, in some cases, “enter into stipulated orders with the dog owner” to obtain compliance without prolonged litigation.

City Manager Brian Cook noted staff had brought the matter back after an earlier, robust discussion and that if passed the ordinance would go into effect 30 days after adoption. The recorded roll-call vote showed five yes votes and no recorded no or abstain votes.

The council’s action updates Chapter 6 of the city municipal code to adopt relevant County provisions and clarifies administrative citation and enforcement authority. Staff and the humane-society partner told council members that hearing costs are generally borne by the dog owner, though staff said costs can vary depending on the hearing’s length and administrative arrangements.

Council members asked how hearing officers will be selected and how animal seizures are handled when public-safety risks are present; staff replied that the city and humane-society partners use third-party hearing officers experienced in animal-control matters, and that seizure and temporary custody of animals is determined on a case-by-case basis depending on public-safety considerations.

The council adjourned to further business after the vote; the ordinance text as stated in the motion was recorded as “ordinance number 26 dash 10 89.”