Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-03-1968 City Council staff report/correspondence• r NOTICE OF HEARING Before City Council NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Clerk of the City of Saratoga, State of California, has set the hour of 8 :00 P. M. on Wednesday, the 3rd day of July, 1968, in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, as the time and place for public hearing on a proposed ordinance providing for certain Birds and Small Mammals as pets in "R" Districts and amending Section 3.2 and 5.2 relating to rezoning, of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga, Copies of the proposed amendment are on file in the offices of the Saratoga City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California, and may be examined prior to the hearing. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES may appear and be heard at said hearing. Written communications should be filed prior to the date of hearing. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Xj JAMES R. HUFF, CITY CLERK Publish June 19, 1968 ORDINANCE NS-3-15 ANI- ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NS -3, THE ZONING ORDINANCE.OFTHE CITY OF SARATOGA, PE PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN SMALL ANIMALS AS TS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: By virtue of the fact that Section 1.3 of Ordinance NS -3 by its terms would presently prohibit the keeping of dogs, cats., and'other pets in "R" zons, and by virtue of the fact that it is generally considered customary for such types of pets.to be permitted in such zones, and in order to permit certain of such.:pets-to,be kept but to. regulate the numbers, kinds, and method-of keeping of the same, now, therefore, a new Subsection-(j) is hereby-"added to Section- 3.2 of Ordinance NS -3, relating to permitted -uses in "R -1" resi- dential districts, and a new..-Subsection (g).is hereby added to Section 5.2 of Ordinance NS -3, r lat" ing to "R-M". residential districts, said Subsection (g)` 5' neach of said .sections to read`" as follows: (g) The keeping of not to exceed the following numbers and kinds of birds, reptiles, fish and small mammals on each site, as pets only,-and not for sale., experimental, breeding or commercial purposes: Domestic dogs and domestic cats, in reasonable numbers, to be confined to the premises occupied by the owner or.person having custody or control, unless such animal is restrained by a leash or chain or at "heel" beside a competent person and obedient to that person's command. All dogs kept within the City limits shall be licensed in accordance with Section 8.18 of the City Code unless specifically exempted by Section 8.19 thereof. Domestic monkeys, in reasonable numbers, at all times on leash or chain or fully confined in a �cg or other enclosure. Rodentia family (rabbits, hamsters, squirrels, mice, rats, guinea. pigs, etc.) in reasonable mumWeT -=_i , at all times on leash or chain or fully confined in a cage or other enclosure. Birds and fowl, excluding peafowl, turkeys, chickens, ducks, geese, roosters, and any other species capable of raucous outcry, in reasonable numbers, at all times to be fully confined in a cage or other enclosure. Reptiles and fish, excluding any poisonous species and excluding all species of crocodilians, in reasonable numbers and at all times to be fully confined in a suitable enclosure.: The keeping of any other species of animal, or any of the above - enumerated permitted animals which are vicious or dangerous, or constitute a public health hazard .or the keeping of any animal which by sound or outcry shalf disturb the po_ace" and comfort of an yy neighborhood or inter- fere with any person in the reasonable and comfortable enjoyment of his property, is hereby prohibited and declared to.be a public nuisance. Section.: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decisions shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance.. The'City Council of Saratoga hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance,and each section, sub - section, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections,.sentences, clauses or phrases be held invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3a This ordinance shall bake effect and be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage and adoption. The above and foregoing ordinance after public hearing held thereon by the Planning Commission of 'the City of Saratoga was.theregfter introduced, and public hearing.held thereon by the City Council of the City of Saratoga and was thereafter. passed and adopted.on the day. of , 19$8, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: -2- CITY OF SARATOGA TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING DIRECTOR 14 JUNE 1968 SUBJECT: SMALL PET ORDINANCE FOR REGULATING THE KEEPING OF SMALL ANIMALS After many months of consideration the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on Monday, 10 June 1968, approved and recommended to the City Council for adoption the enclosed Ordinances,relating to the keeping of Small Pets in residential areas. A4p*0* Stanley . Walker Planning Director SMW /j CITY OF SARATOGA MEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: PUBLIC WELFARE COMMITTEE t August 20, 1968 SUBJECT: SMALL ANIMAL ORDINANCE NO. NS -3.15 After studying the proposed small animal ordinance, the correspondence received and the testimony at the opening session of the public hearing we recommend that reference to domestic cats be deleted from the first paragraph of subsection (g) and that the following be inserted as the second paragraph of subsection (g), under Section 1 of Ordinance NS -3.15: "Domestic cats, in reasonable numbers, so long as said domestic cats are maintained under the control of the owner." We understand from the City Attorney that, inasmuch as this is a minor change and makes the ordinance less restrictive than that originally proposed, it will not be necessary to reintroduce the ordinance and continue the public hearing. Therefore we recommend adoption of Ord- inance NS -3.15 revised to incorporate this change. Respectfully submitted, JEROME A. SMITH, CHAIRMAN ROBERT H. DWYER, MEMBER 10 0 CITY OF SARATOGA 8 APRIL 1968 REPORT ON THE SMALL PET ORDINANCE I. The following are a summary of my criticisms of the proposed ordinance: A. The limitations on numbers and species are not realistic. At one extreme, it would permit upwards of 30 animals on one 10,000 square foot residential lot in Saratoga. At the other extreme, it would impose a limit of three (3) dogs on a residential site of one (1) acre or more.. Also, three (3) German Shephards might be too much; three (3) toy poodles, no problem at all. B. There is no specific reference to dangerous or poisonous animals, non - domesticated animals, or animals which omit loud or raucous outcry (except birds). The reference to "small mammals" leaves open many questions relative to lambs (sheep), kids (goats), pigs, cows (calveO , (etc. C. There is no enclosure or leash law relating to dogs and cats. It should be clear that all other animals are to be completely enclosed. D. There is no specific reference to sanitation and nuisance problems. I believe this would be the biggest source of problems with small pets. CITY OF SARATOGA REPORT ON THE SMALL PET ORDINANCE - CONTINUED II. Proposed changes in the ordinance: JAK /cg 8 APRIL 1968 A. Eliminate the references to numbers of animals, or (1) vary the number according to lot size or (2) require use permits for ani- mals in excess of the numbers stipulated. I do not favor the use permit alternative. B. Specifically exclude dangerous or noisy animals, and larger species, such as bovine, sheep, lambs, pigs, goats, kids, geese, ducks, etc. '(including alligators). Outlaw beekeeping. C. Require enclosure of all animals. Enact a leash law. Section 6.16 -120 of the Palo Alto Ordinance looks pretty good. Section 4.27 of the Gilroy City Code is probably even better. D. Include a food poisoning ordinance, such as Section 5.45 of the Mountain View Code. E. Include a strong anti - nuisance provision, such as Section 4.26 of the Gilroy City Code. I particularly like the reference to complaints signed by three (3) or more persons to get action... F. Enact a strong sanitation ordinance. The Campbell law, specifically Sections 4129, 4129.1, 4129.4, 4131.1, 4131.2, and 4132.6 are good examples. I particularly like the reference to flies as evidence of lack of sanitary conditions. Jerry A. Kasner 0 HOWARD L. BROOKS 19370 SARATOGA•LOS GATOS ROAD SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA City of Saratoga Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Gentlemen: 0"... April 20, 1968 Glad to note that the City is planning to abate several annoying conditions now disturbing the peace of our community. For at least seven years Conrad H. Lindner Sr., 19350 Saratoga Los Gatos Road, Saratoga has maintained a pen of Great Dane dogs. Frequently raising a litter of pups, which I assume are sold. This I believe is a violation of the deed restriction on property in this neighborhood. The constant barking for hours on end both day and night have been protested by ourselves both through personal approach and many times through the sheriff ' s office, to no avail. Your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated. Very truly yours Howard L. HLB/wb Mr. Jerry A. Kasner Attorney at Law P. 0. Box 452 Santa Clara, California 95052 Re: Saratoga Small Pet Ordinance Dear Jerry: TELEPHONE 294 -904® In accord with our conversation, I have bifurcated your proposed ordinance draft, and enclose herewith proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, and proposed amendment to the Saratoga City Code, relating to the keeping and maintenance of small animals. I have left out the proviso against animals trespassing, since this is already covered in Section 8 -3 of the Code. Under "Birds and fowl" and the exclusions therefrom, I would question the exclusion of chickens and roosters -- only because one is a genus, and the other a specie. Hens cluck, roosters crow, and chickens includes both. However, I have left it in the way it was drafted. In closing, you will be pleased to note that I have checked with a number of local pet stores, and am rather chagrined to advise you that there seems to be a complete dearth of cat leashes on the market here in this valley. Perhaps our ordinance will help create a new industry. The balance of the copies of the enclosed ordinance have been sent directly to the city offices. Yours very truly, FLT ;rf Fab Johnston, Jr. Encl. cc: City of Saratoga Attn: Planning Commission JOHNSTON AND MILLER FABER L. JOHNSTON ATTORNEYS AT LAW FABER L. JOHNSTON, JR. 711 FIRST,NATIONAL BANK BUILDING GLENN E. MILLER SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 GARY V. GIANNINI May 8, 1968 Mr. Jerry A. Kasner Attorney at Law P. 0. Box 452 Santa Clara, California 95052 Re: Saratoga Small Pet Ordinance Dear Jerry: TELEPHONE 294 -904® In accord with our conversation, I have bifurcated your proposed ordinance draft, and enclose herewith proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, and proposed amendment to the Saratoga City Code, relating to the keeping and maintenance of small animals. I have left out the proviso against animals trespassing, since this is already covered in Section 8 -3 of the Code. Under "Birds and fowl" and the exclusions therefrom, I would question the exclusion of chickens and roosters -- only because one is a genus, and the other a specie. Hens cluck, roosters crow, and chickens includes both. However, I have left it in the way it was drafted. In closing, you will be pleased to note that I have checked with a number of local pet stores, and am rather chagrined to advise you that there seems to be a complete dearth of cat leashes on the market here in this valley. Perhaps our ordinance will help create a new industry. The balance of the copies of the enclosed ordinance have been sent directly to the city offices. Yours very truly, FLT ;rf Fab Johnston, Jr. Encl. cc: City of Saratoga Attn: Planning Commission June 3, 1968 Mr. Jerry A. Kasner Attorney at Law c/o City of Saratoga Planning Commission P. 0. Box 377 Saratoga, California RE: Saratoga Small Pet Ordinance Gentlemen: Thank you for your letter and sugges A proposed amendment to the be difficult of enforcement, numbers as to particular ani "reasonable numbers ". There as to what reasonable number the criminal sanction of mis If a numercial limit is use identifiable whether viola becAuse i is, but re s always and t nor or of course s or of ljay 15, 1968. ance we\,feel would does not ast definite ters rather to question of fact we are imposing a violation. it is easily does not exist. Since this constitu s an amend t to \the zoning ordinance„ Article 20 of Ordina ce NS -3 in re tion to who enforces the ordinance, and/what a the penaltiies for its violations, apply. The second p agraph o ection 20/)3 provides for injunctive relief, whi in a situat on tha possibly might not be controllab a by persuasion ou be a better course to take than crimi 1 prosecution. The other ord il2i nce rela s to an amendment to the existing City Code, put ng in a w division entitled "Animal Maintenance ". I agree with you sugg Lion that there should be a specification of a minimum requi nt for an investigation, and therefore, have prepared and am enclosing an additional proposed Section 8 -15.3 to be added to this ordinance. Again, enforcement of this ordinance is already provided for by the City Code itself, and specifically by Sections 1 -7 through 1 -11 of the Code. Again, they provide for misdemeanor on the criminal side, and injunctive or abatement type of relief on the civil side, the same as for the zoning ordinance violations. In addition, tickets may be given (see Section 1 -9) similar to traffic tickets, for such violation in lieu of a warrant for arrest. Therefore, in our opinion there is ample enforcement provisions that would relate to these two proposed amendments byy virtue of the already - existing enforcement provisions applicable to Mr. Jerry A. Kasner -2- June 3, 1968 RE: Saratoga Small Pet Ordinance all situations. I hope this answers the questions presented in Mr. Kas I ner's letter to me of May 15, 1.068. Yours ,very truly, Faber. L. Joh stop, Jr. City for the of Sarat a FLJ/vrr. Enels.- l� r FABER L.JOHNSTON FABER L. JOHNSTON, JR. GLENN E. MILLER GARY V. GIANNINI Mr. Jerry A. Kasner Attorney at Law c/o City of Saratoga Planning Commission P. 0. Box 377 Saratoga, California Gentlemen: JOHNSTON AND MILLER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 711 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 June 3, 1968 RE: Saratoga Small Pet Ordinance Thank you for your letter and suggestions of May 15, 1968. TELEPHONE 294 -9046 A proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance we feel would be difficult of enforcement, because it does not set definite numbers as to particular animals, but refers rather to "reasonable numbers ". - There is always a question of fact as to what reasonable number is, and yet we are imposing the criminal sanction of misdemeanor for a violation. If a numercial limit is used, of course it is easily identifiable whether a violation does or does not exist. Since this constitutes an amendment to the zoning ordinance, Article 20 of Ordinance NS -3 in relation to who enforces the ordinance, and what are the penalties for its violations, apply. The second paragraph of Section 20.3 provides for injunctive relief, which in a situation that possibly might not be controllable by persuasion would be a better course to take than criminal prosecution. The other ordinance relates to an amendment to the existing City Code, putting in a new division entitled "Animal Maintenance" I agree with your suggestion that there should be a specification of a minimum requirement for an investigation, and therefore have prepared and am enclosing an additional proposed Section 8 -15.3 to be added to this ordinance. Again, enforcement of this ordinance is already provided for by the City Code itself, and specifically by Sections 1 -7 through 1 -11 of the Code. Again, they provide for misdemeanor on the criminal side, and injunctive or abatement type of relief on the civil side, the same as for the zoning ordinance violations. In addition, tickets may be given (see ,Section 1 -9) similar to traffic tickets, for such violation in lieu of a warrant for arrest. Therefore, in our opinion there is ample enforcement provisions that would relate to these two proposed amendments, by virtue of the already - existing enforcement provisions applicable to Mr. Jerry A. Kasner RE: Saratoga Small Pet Ordinance all situations. -2- June 3, 1968 I hope this answers the questions presented in Mr. Kasner's letter to me of May 15, 1968. city FLJ /vrr Encls. ly, Saratoga July 3, 1968 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, Calif. 95070 Dear Gentlemen: I am in favor of making all cat "lovers" keep -their cats at home. I have a cat and know it is not all that difficult to keep a cat within his own yard if you are willing to take the time to be with him. My cat has a pen the full length of the end of our house and a cat door to use to get to this pen. He is free to come and go as he pleases within the enclosure night or day. The pen is six feet high which allows for easy cleaning and there is grass and several plants that he likes to sit under and smell. When I am home in the evening or afternoon I put him out in the back yard on a light rope that will reach to the fence but no further. This means that every 15 minutes or so I have to look out the door to see if he has wrapped himself around a pole or a plant or perhaps my tree. In other words my cat requires as much attention as a child yet he has not suffered from this attention. In .fact everytime I see a dead cat in a street or read of a cat or dog being poisoned from the neighbors insect and snail poison or even from someone putting out poisoned meat to keep the cats away I thank my stars that I know where my cat is. People scream about having to clean up after the neighbors dogs yet they don't worry about someone else having to.clean up after their cat. Their cat is clean and neat only because he does not do his harm at home. He goes next door to go in the neighbors sand box (where the kids can dig it up) and sprays the windows of the woman down the street that has a female she has sense enough to keep in. Time after time the night has been shattered by the cries of two cats fighting because they were put out for the night. And it must be noted that one or both of those cats went home scarred for life. Yet the owner of the cat will swear he is a great cat lover and take his pet to the Vet to be repaired so he can be put out again the following night. Cats do not suffer from being confined if they are given a chance to get some fresh air:and sunshine. They are quite content to roam the house and pens or perhaps an enclosed patio area. Then if allowed they love to get out into their yards but if they can't every day they do not suffer any ill effects and only look forward to getting out next time. I think that cats like being out -with their owners far more than they enjoy roaming alone. True cat lovers know where their pets are and know they are not under the wheels of some car, in convulsions from being poisoned, trying to make it home after being shot with pellets or already dead when morning comes and they put out their pets breakfast. I know where my pet is not because I cage him and allow him out only under supervision but because I care enough not to want anything to happen to him. I know my cat is not being chased by a dog or abused by children or bothering someone who really does not like cats. I love him enough to want to keep him and to do this it is my responsibility► to keep him out of my neighbors yards and homes. After all their children do not run through my =yard and home why should my pet run through theirs. I am enclosing a clipping from my CATS magazine to show that I am not alone in feeling that a cats place is at home. DO FENCE ME IN Dear Editors: The article in the March CATS on comfortable and attractive feline accom- modations came just in time to provide us with the final details for building an enclosure for our cats. We fenced in a 10 x 20 foot area, (including a tree), and added a cat en- trance between their indoor playroom and the outdoor playground. We plan to add shelves and perhaps the small pool mentioned in the article. We usually have five cats, but peri- odically this number increases with the addition of strays we take in until we can find good homes for them. Since we are away during the day, we decided an enclosure was a necessity to give us peace of mind —and to allow the cats the pleasure of outdoors. We enjoy CATS very much\and have purchased a number of items\ through your advertisers. Sonya Kennedy Yours truly, Mrs. C. V. Robnett 0 0 July 3, 1968 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, California Gentlemen: This letter is in reference to the leash ordinance which is to have a hearing at the City Council meeting on July 3, 1968. I am very much in favor of this ordinance. I have a cat and do not appreciate other people's animals roaming my yard. I do not allow my animal to impose nor infringe on my neighbors privacy. A resident of Saratoga. Thank you, 0 0 Saratoga City Cou�icil July 3, 1960 Dear Sirs; We are registering a protest against the proposed ordinance on leashing or chaining cats and their being " -- confined to the premises occupied by the owner." This means that cats would have to be confined to the house, or a fenced back yard, or caged up, or eliu:inated com letely because of the impossibility of said things. 1. If confined to house, cI.ts bound out the door from no- where, quick as a lightening flash, when friends come, or children.. 2. If confined to back fenced yard, they can climb any of the highest fences, or scale trees and escape, or climb to the roof. 3. How can you !possibly enforce this ordinance on cats with only one patrol car for Saratoga? 4. How can you catch the cats? If this law an cats is passed, you will likely receive hun- dreds of phone calls a month with our large population up to 249000, and one or more cranks per neighborhood. (These same cranks call_ repeated times, never haopy,�nd omnipresent in every neighborhood.) This type of unhappy crank sometimes entices and captures the cats ( or dogs, as happened to us in Michigan), with food and then calls and asks the city to impound the animal. We've read articles on such things also, in years past. We want pro- tection from these kind of people, and your law will only encourage them. We agree with such an ordinance on dogs (not cats), and it Is reasonable and easier to enforce. We suggest that the main ,protest against cats is their nightly howling, yowling and cat fights, and possible could recommend that cats be kept in the house (or garage) at night, after feeding them. This would probably satisfy the cat protesters. During the day, cats are seldom if ever a nuisance. Occasionally our children or their friends accidentally let our dog out the gate; but we can call her back, whereas you can'T call a cat back. Will we have to give up having cats with their being impound- ed because of this impossible ordinance and cat cranks? What next will we have to give up, - -- -noisy babies and playing children? Yours truly, t� 9 0 July 2, 1968 City Council City of Saratoga Saratoga, California Lear Sirs: ;4e wish to object vigorously to any attempt to pass an ordinance requiring that cat owners keep their pets constantly upon their own property. We feel this is such a minor problem compared to others which you must face that it is very wasteful of your efforts and talents. There has been a leash law for dogs and yet many other owners flout this consistently. Dogs wander up and down our street every day and those who have complained to the proper authorities have not met with any coopera- tion which has alleviated the problem. If an ordinance against cats were passed there are certain of us who would conscientiously obey this rule and yet many would just ignore it and get away with it. Our two cats are in the house most of the time and yet we would tertdinly object if we could not let them out one or two times a day and at night. Please give this viewpoint your serious consideration. Sincerely, Don R. Stephens Linda J. Stephens 18762 Casa Blanca Lane Saratoga, California • • �%� .��6� ��� ���.- �� � ., � `����� C %l -UrL �Q/� c•2 U�U' CL�i� /t o -G[-QJ I %G�' �'i�° : �-�/ �, �i � � ��� � « -��� �V �� � ��� �-� J �- / n `, -, 0 0 julp-11761 Pe cir �ardt °Jd Cif Y Coqhcl,l, ,I/�y �rlelljs Phd I i ab),jl� ruin yoq /Wo y ►,h 10 KeeP COS 1h �� U IeO�he \pile 4�11 i 11 10 caft of e ►yhc�� sqrclfogq c I V r 0 • City Council Saratoga, California 0 18543 Ravenwood Ave. Saratoga, California July 2, 1968 We wish to protest the proposed ordinance requiring cats to be leashed and held under strict-control in Saratoga. We feel that such an ordinance would be an extreme hard- ship bn cat owners as well as the cats themselves. We feel too that it is impossible keep cats under strict control due to their natural ability to climb fences and trees. Respectfully, Mary E. Bozovich Nick R. Bozovich July 21 1968 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Dear Sirs; Regarding - The proposed ordinance to keep cats on leash or caged. I object to adopting the above part of "the proposed small animal ordinance." We have two cats which we keep primarily for gopher control on our acre lot. We had quite a problem with gophers until we obtained the cats. In my opinion, the gophers do far more damage then the cats could ever do. e S: � �� v4e 4/ r. W4 r� Geraldine L. Barrett 14050 Marilyn Lane Saratoga, California 95070 July 8, 1968 Saratoga City Council 13777 Fruitdale Avenue Saratoga, California Dear Sirs; Regarding the proposed pet ordinance ( the portion proposing to keep cats caged or on leash.) In regard to the diminishing wildlife, especially the quail; There have always been cats in the area, Los Gatos is named for them. I believe much of the wildlife has diminished simply because the natural brush has diminished with flood control clearing the creek sides and the open areas made into residential areas and schools. Lets not put all the blame on cats - a little belongs to the influx of people! In our area we have always been able to call "animal control" when we have had truly stray dogs and cats, with much success. Geraldine L. Barrett 14.050 Marilyn Lane Saratoga, California 0. Box 454 atoga, California 95070 M � Z U, July 11, 1968 i Z City Council JUL 121968 Saratoga, California Dear Sirs • CITY CLERKS OFFICE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA I would like to submit a suggestion concerning the cat problem: a suggestion which would not solve the entire problem, as I am not sure anything will, but one which might help without having; to cage or leash cats (a rather unnatural situation). 1) All male cats should be neutered, with the exception of those owned for breeding purposes. Such cats should then be caged, leashed, or confined at home. 2) All female cats should be spayed, with the exception of those owned for breeding purposes. Such cats should be caged, leashed, or confined at home. 3) All cats should be registered (license fee required) by the city. a) As many older cats would have difficulty being trained to a collar for a license, a paper license might be sufficient. b) Dogs must have a license, and many things in our lives require a license, so cats should be no exception. c) Cats who still persist in being pests should be reported to the city, and steps taken to notify the owner of the problem. 4) All cats should be registered by the age of 2 months. Breeders then have ample opportunity to sell or give away kittens without penalty of excessive registration fees. • Neutered /spayed cats have less tendency to wander a neighborhood. Female cats attract innumerable tom cats into a neighborhood, so cat fights are usual. Neutered /spayed cats would cut down on the cat population of those who are un- wanted and thrown out or let wander, simply because a family does not wish to care for them. I could see that such a ordinance could also be applied to dogs, although I don't know how much problem dogs in Saratoga present to people. Certainly, some people would try to ignore the ordinance, but, at least, legal steps could be taken. I have to admit that my desire for the consideration of this suggestion is not completely unselfish, although I can say it is suggested out of concern and know - ledge of my own cat. We have owned cats previous to the one we have now, and they have all behaved in the same way. Our present cat was not owned by us until he was one year old, so training a cat to stay home is not limited to young kittens. Our cat is neutered, and he stays home except for an occasional trip next door, where he is welcomed. Were he not welcome, he would be trained to stop such Visits. Our cat does not fight, but he has been jumped on by cats who come into his own back yard - -a fenced yard. In his two years of life, he has been at the vet's five times with serious injuries - -the latest this last Monday. I am not against cats in the yard but am against fights of tom and /or female cats who have not been neutered or spayed. We feed many birds in our back yard, and our cat rarely catches one, as he is well fed. Unfortunately, we can never license, demand or legislate the important needs for keeping cats home and keeping them from catching birds: love, attention, good care and ample food. We have to accept that some people will never take the responsibility which goes with owning a pet (or animal, as some people seldom realize they have a pet), but neutering or spaying cats and the necessity of paying registration fees would alleviate the problem to some degree. Sincerely, Joyce Leyland I JUQ 6 1968 DR. THOMAS NEWTON FOSTER 14552 HORSESHOE DRIVE CITY CLERKS OFFICE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA �nr'117, r'n cni iFnPt,t," 7 n co""wc .�- w'tr- .,2..rl�. •Q�c. Mac-. cer� '� �U �(2.P�r -� pia �.--�- � � o� Nw a- �..,.r.- -fit �.�rv� -�. c -c�2r� �,. Saratoga City Council Saratoga, California Gentlemen, 196tgust 6,1968 Three Oaks Way Saratoga, California The recent furor over the proposed pet ordinance in Saratoga prompts me to offer my opinion and a few significant facts which suggest a strong leash law is necessary. Pet oTmers should be reminded that a leash law has been in effect in Santa Clara County for some five ears (article III, section 4.3.3 -19 "stray animals "). Unfortun- ately, the law is not enforced, and the problem of strays in- creases as population burgeons. Indiscriminate breeding is, of course, the major source of the problem; loss and theft of one °s pet, poisonings, and injuries by automobiles are other possibilities which face roaming animals. Damage to the property of others should be a consideration. Within this past year, twelve pets in Saratoga have been poisoned to my knoT,Tledge. The animals involved, save one, were allowed to roam. This is the second serious outbreak of poisonings in Saratoga within ten years. On the subject of loss, the case of Dr. Foster, who i�rrote the council conderaing the leash law, should be of interest. Dr. Foster "lost his dog in January of this year and vras fortunate to find her through a newspaper ad. If the dog had been constrained in a fenced area, he never T*ould have had the problem. Although Dr. Foster argued against fencing as costly and unsightly, I think he T -Till find that fencing need not be expensive, and that attractive screen plants are readily available. Obviously, one must consider the breed of dog in sizing a .fenced area; for that matter, common sense should be used. in selecting a breed. As for cats, the ordinance proposes to confine all. While show cats are usually confined, the basic nature of the major- ity of cats makes such a law for them unenforceable. The answer to this problem is spaying of females and neutering of males. This procedure need not alter the cat °s personality, except possibly to improve.it. Sensible diet, altered or not, is the answer to potential overweight problems. In one creek - in one area - one ton can impregnate ten female cats as an average. One queen is capable of breeding four times a year with an average of five kittens per litter. Remember: toms do travel! Feral cats are often the result of 'this indiscriminate breeding; abandoned kittens are all too common. Unspayed female dogs that are allowed to roam can also contribute to an overabundant animal population. In seven years for example, one female dog and her offspring can total 4,372 animals, of i,rhich half will be female - and so the problem grows. Castration of male dogs is generally not recommended and it has been found that they do not have a problem if females are spayed. At this Doint, let me point out that I am a pet owner, and that I love animals. I have spent a great amount of time working on a volunteer basis locating lost animals and re- turning them to their oti•,Tners. I have witnessed the misery of lost, strayed, and injured pets, abandoned kittens, and heart- sick owners. For this reason I strongly advocate an enforced leash law and spaying /neutering of animals. In conclusion, as food for thought, consider the following. 1. In June 1968, the _Humane Society of Santa Clara Valley (S.P.C.A. ) processed 4,444 cats and 1813 dogs. These figures included truck pickups and over -the- counter surrenders. 2. Of the 4,444 cats processed in June, homes T,rere found for a scant eighty -two or ti-,,o percent. 3. In 19679 during a seven month period, 30,000 cats T{ere processed through the S.P.C.A. - again in this county! Because of public apathy, the situation is deteriorating as the population increases. The S.P.C.A, sorely needs funds to enlarge their quarters; additional land has already been ac- quired. T4g, Animal Protection Institute, which ?•eras :formed to provide loti••rnspaying services, needs public support, if a clinic is to be opened in the Bay Area. Both organizations are non- profit, tax deductible; they deserve the support of pet owners everywhere. Indeed, I am making a plea for sanity. Please - help turn off the faucet: Very truly yours, Mrs. Barbara Marshall EXECUTIVE OFFICE 241 WEST MACARTHUR BLVD. OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA CONTI 1777 HAMILTON AVENUE SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95125 TELEPHONE 266 -2700 pofZP�t"oy� �r�/ CovNc wq- uJ o L ,Q d A AU l 0 O lam- 514 o UI I y OVA �. - - nt,V�� "AC 1ade(a - D M0 evt i�2�Yr 9� fiat �o�,� t /'Lud D10 C"d- 0-7 CA to d ) I&Y CUJ07A) a /YAu MI Fj �p �-✓t pa l 1u SOS SPuI2loE/ #6/ /OOJ �/q/v(- BRANCH OFFICES FREMONT FRESNO SACRAMENTO SANTA ROSA S, INC. pofZP�t"oy� �r�/ CovNc wq- uJ o L ,Q d A AU l 0 O lam- 514 o UI I y OVA �. - - nt,V�� "AC 1ade(a - D M0 evt i�2�Yr 9� fiat �o�,� t /'Lud D10 C"d- 0-7 CA to d ) I&Y CUJ07A) a /YAu MI Fj �p �-✓t pa l 1u SOS SPuI2loE/ #6/ /OOJ �/q/v(- 0 6 October 22, 1968 Mrs. Joyce Leyland P. O. Box 454 Saratoga, California Dear Mrs. Leyland: Thank you for your letter of October 20, 1968. We regret the loss of your pet although we know ve cannot fully appreciate the impact the loss has on you. Yours truly, J. R. Huff City Administrator JRH: t j r 9 City Council Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Sirs: P 0. Box 454 *katoga, California 9ber 20, 1968 When, the City Council was discussing an ordinance about cats, I wrote a letter to the Council making a suggestion to help control cat roaming and unwanted breeding - -to some degree - -by spaying and neutering. I commented how a cat, trained to stay in his own yard, was still subjected to fights from other cats who are 'not neutered or spayed and who roam 'at will'. The letter was greeted by both disagreement and agreement, as well it should be. Some wanted, and others didn't, not only cats but dogs controlled -- another item met with both praise and condemnation. The Humane Society appears concerned enough about the pet population to propagandize through the mass media. I have been asked since how a cat could learn to stay in his yard -- especially as the 'sex urge' is so powerful. A dog can be controlled and PROTECTED by a fence, but not a cat.. Of course, neutering and spaying would help control the sex urge. Those cats not neutered or spayed would have been kept from roaming. I don't know how we have taught our cats to stay in the yard. All I can say is that it was achieved through a great deal of love and attention, as well as consistent use of reinforcement theory methods. This time, I offer no suggestions for control or protection. I do not offer congratulations or condemnation of the ordinance made by the Council. I write only a sequel to my first letter. Perhaps, people will make an honest re- assessment of their pets' lives and will not need an ordinance to practice control. It may be true not only of humans, but also,of pets, that unlimited freedom and lack of control are not always acts of love. Freedom with responsi- bility to others and wise, consistent control can be the greatest acts of love. There was a 'little guy' - who gave love and pleasure to a family, and, who received the same in return; who thought he was a king in his own yard - -to lie or roam in the sun; to relax in the shade; to romp on the roof -top; who knew he was a king in the hearts of his family; who knew the house was his at any time; who never learned to fight - -not even in defense; who knew only love'and friendship and thought others could know only the same. Without any law or training, our cat will always stay in his own yard now. He won't be bothered again by other cats who roam in hLs yard. We will give and receive love and pleasure from him only In-our memories. His yard did not offer him enough safety. His fence limited him but did not limit others. In his short 2k years, he had been fought many times when he was in his own yard. There was one fight too many. He's dead. Joyce Leyland