During the November 13, 2001 Council Meeting Parks and Recreation staff presented a Report to Council on park enforcement Issues (RTC #01-333). One issue of particular concern was whether there was a need for increased enforcement of animal control laws in the parks. Council directed staff to conduct a pilot project to see if increased enforcement of animal control laws in the parks would yield an increase in compliance.

In reviewing the results of the project we conclude that animal control law violations are occurring at the parks, however, it is not clear if increased enforcement of the laws will have a direct or residual benefit.

Staff recommends that the Public Safety and Parks and Recreation Departments continue to educate and inform park users regarding animal control laws and work with neighborhoods where this type of violations is of concern. Public Safety will continue to issue citations, where necessary throughout the park system. In addition the actions undertaken during the pilot project will be repeated. That is, periodically staff will increase enforcement activities for animal related ordinances at locations perceived to have the greatest numbers of violations.

The project was undertaken as a cooperative effort between Public Safety and Parks and Recreation. The entire project ran from April 1 – May 12, 2002, approximately 6 weeks. Prior to the increased enforcement commencing, Parks and Recreation monitored violations at three different parks at various times during the day and evening. The three parks selected received added focus and individual data collection in the original report to Council, Las Palmas, Lakewood and Panama. Parks Recreation staff monitored violations during the course of their daily duties. Observing those who walked dogs at each of the three parks. They did not stay at the parks throughout their entire workday (6:00 a.m.- 3:30 p.m.) but kept a log of observed violations when they were at the selected parks. Parks and Recreation staff also performed these same tasks on overtime, two hours per day in the evenings to see what violations may occur when Parks and Recreation staff are not normally on duty. Because it is a much smaller site without playground or other amenities, the hours of observation at Panama Park were less than for the other two parks.

This observation period was followed by two weeks of strict enforcement by Public Safety Animal Control Officers, from April 15 – 28, 2002. Staff continued to record observed violations during the enforcement phase. Staff focused on three ordinances when performing enforcement in the parks. First, licensing of dogs. Second, dogs must be on a leash no longer than 6 feet regardless of how well the dog is trained and controlled by the owner. Third, owners picking up after their animals and not allowing them to become a nuisance. During the enforcement period Staff strictly enforced animal control laws, issuing citations for all violations rather than allowing the officer the discretion to educate, inform and/or warn. Animal Control Officers directed most of their enforcement time during the morning and late evening hours. They issued 24 citations during the increased enforcement period.

In many cases the officers were met with very confrontational citizens who felt the laws were too restrictive and did not take into account the training and obedience level of their particular dog. Citizens were also irate at the lack of discretion used. Two citation issuance events caused such emotional outbursts on the part of the citizens that they necessitated that the Animal Control Officer request a Public Safety police patrol response because the Animal Control Officers feared for their own safety. Public Safety Administration received one complaint from a citizen who felt that the increased enforcement without prior warning or education was unreasonable. The citizen also complained that the community was not involved in the decision to take the enforcement action.

After the increased enforcement period Staff again monitored compliance in the three parks. Following are some Parks staff observations:

This was not a project with precise and comprehensive monitoring and enforcement periods to make in-depth conclusions. Some uncontrollable factors impacting the project include varying monitoring and enforcement times, weather, organized group activities in the park, and calls for service that pulled officers away from park enforcement. However, there was sufficient information gleaned to provide some useful information, including information regarding dog owner compliance that could be attributed to the enforcement action. The data collected should be combined with staff observations and should be considered subjective, rather than objective or conclusive.

When residents are given a chance to raise issues of concern at our parks, enforcement is rarely mentioned. Further, when residents are specifically asked their opinions about the existing level of park enforcement, residents express high satisfaction. These findings are consistent with staff’s experience, both documented and anecdotal. Actual observations of park user’s behavior also support these findings. While overall satisfaction with the existing level of park enforcement is good, there is certainly always room for improvement.

Generally the goal of any enforcement activity is to modify behavior over the long term, not just to achieve short-term compliance. Studies have been done in the law enforcement field on how to impact behavior and solve neighborhood crime and quality of life problems. The general conclusion of these studies is that an evaluation of causal factors, focused effort of education and community involvement in finding solutions coupled with enforcement and reassessment yields the best results. This type of comprehensive approach is commonly known as Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS). It includes designing the physical environment in parks to encourage compliance. Examples include landscaping parks to provide sight lines for Public Safety and others, lighting of parks and location of park amenities. Education may take many forms, ranging from signage to meetings with user groups and neighborhood associations, educational pamphlets and face-to-face contacts to explain rules. These elements of neighborhood problem resolution are in place in Sunnyvale and are working well. While Animal Control and Public Safety Officers may certainly employ education as a means to encourage compliance with park rules and laws, the main responsibility for daily and ongoing education of park users will likely fall with Parks and Recreation staff because their jobs are in the parks.

A strong working relationship exists between the Parks and Recreation and the Public Safety Departments, to support staffs’ efforts in working with the community to resolve specific issues. Public Safety and Parks & Recreation Departments often work together behind the scenes, identifying problem areas and actions staff can take as well as cross training of staff to understand the issues in question and the best way to address them. Similarly, the Parks and Recreation and Public Safety Departments have good relationships with other Departments, such as Community Development, Office of the City Manager and Public Works, that enables staff to meet with residents and work with neighborhoods in a coordinated and comprehensive fashion.

E.1.e Recreation Sub-Element: Provide fair and equitable policies and procedures for the use of all parks and recreation facilities, which will take into account the impact of non-resident use.

2.2A.2c Open Space/Conservation Sub-Element: Encourage responsible use of the open space through positive public relations/communication.

4.1A.4a Police Services Sub-Element: Continue and enhance neighborhood based crime prevention activities.

None for Alternatives 1 or 2.