City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Meeting Date: 11/23/09 Item Number: A-1
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of the Introduction of an Ordinance
Adding Section 9.01 to the Culver City Municipal Code, Prohibiting the Declawing
of Cats or Other Animals in The City of Culver City.
Contact Person/Dept.: Shelly Wolfberg/
City Manager’s Office
Phone Number: (310) 253-6008
Fiscal Impact: Yes [] No [X] General Fund: Yes [] No [X]
Public Hearing: [] Action Item: [X] Attachments: [X]
Commission Action Required: Yes [] No [X] Date: _______________
Public Notification: Meetings and Agendas – City Council (11/19/09); (Telephone)
Veterinarians with Culver City Business Tax Certificates (11/19/09)
Department Approval:
Martin R. Cole (11/17/09)
City Attorney Approval:
Carol Schwab (by H. Baker) (11/17/09)
Chief Financial Officer Approval:
Mark Scott (by M. Noller) (11/18/09)
City Manager Approval:
Mark Scott (11/19/09)
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the City Council consider introducing a proposed Ordinance
(Attachment 1) which would prohibit performing, assisting in performing, and
procuring onychectomies and flexor tendonectomies, which are declawing
procedures, on cats in Culver City.
BACKGROUND:
In 2003, the City of West Hollywood adopted an ordinance regulating (and generally
prohibiting) the practice of declawing animals. In 2005, the California Veterinary
Medical Association (CVMA) filed suit to invalidate the ordinance, claiming that the
ordinance was in conflict with and preempted by state law. While the CVMA
prevailed at trial, West Hollywood appealed in 2006. The appellate court ultimately
ruled in West Hollywood’s favor and the California Supreme Court rejected further
appeal which made the appellate court’s ruling final. The appellate court held that
the City of West Hollywood’s ordinance prohibiting onychectomy and flexor
tendonectomy was within the City’s police power to prevent animal cruelty.
On July 2, 2009, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB 762 into law. SB 762
prohibits cities or counties from restricting any person from performing a procedure
that falls within the scope of practice of a person licensed by the State Department
of Consumer Affairs (DCA). Specifically, this bill: City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
1. Makes it unlawful for a city, county, or city and county to prohibit a licensed
healing arts professional from engaging in any act or performing any procedure
that falls within the licensee's professionally recognized scope of practice.
2. Authorizes the enforcement of a local ordinance in effect prior to January 1,
2010, related to any act or procedure that falls within a licensed healing arts
professional's recognized scope of practice.
3. Authorizes a city, county, or city and county to adopt or enforce any local
ordinance governing zoning, business licensing, or reasonable health and safety
requirements for establishments or businesses of a licensed healing arts
professional.
SB 762 addresses an issue that is raised by local municipalities to have the ability to
ban specific practices of professions regulated by DCA and asserts that it is critical
to have statewide oversight and ultimate authority over professional businesses,
occupations, or professions.
DISCUSSION:
A change in state law, effective January 1, 2010, SB 762 will preempt cities from
banning certain procedures provided by “healing arts practitioners” including cat
declawing. Supporters of declawing bans assert that the declawing procedure is
actually very painful and may not be necessary. The supporters argue declawed
cats:
• Are deprived of the means to defend themselves or flee from danger;
• Have been injured or killed by other animals when they could not climb out of
harm's way or had impaired ability to protect themselves;
• Are deprived of satisfying their instinctual behavioral impulses to climb,
exercise, and mark territory;
• Are subject to the risks of general anesthesia and surgery, which include
bleeding, infection, lameness, nerve damage, gangrene, extensive tissue
damage, and death;
• Are disproportionately abandoned at shelters; and,
• May be euthanized more often because of the behavioral and physical
problems that may result from declawing.
Supporters of SB 762 included organizations representing professions regulated by
DCA. They believe that the legislature and the healing arts boards and bureaus
should have the ultimate authority over medical scope of practice issues based on
their education, training, and expertise. They argue that without legislation ensuring
uniform statewide governance of licensed professions, professional standards will be
dissimilar and discordant. City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
Opponents of SB 762 who included animal rights organizations and the City of West
Hollywood, believe that local jurisdictions have the right to make specific decisions
relating to professions and that the appellate court's decision should be upheld.
So far, several California cities have considered or adopted declawing prohibitions.
In addition to the City of West Hollywood, the City of Santa Monica had the first and
second reading of the ordinance and the Cities of Los Angeles, Beverly Hills,
Berkeley, and San Francisco have had first readings, all approved unanimously or
nearly unanimously. The City of Malibu passed a resolution condemning the
practice of declawing but did not adopt an ordinance.
Under the provisions of SB 762, state law will pre-empt local regulations in this area
that are not in effect prior to January 1, 2010. Therefore, should the City Council
determine it wishes to regulate this practice, the ordinance proposed would need to
be introduced this evening with a second reading scheduled for November 30, 2009.
Upon adoption of the ordinance, the law would become effective on December 30,
2009 (30 days after adoption). Should the City Council choose to adopt an
Ordinance to ban the declawing of cats, City staff would inform Culver City based
veterinarians of this new law. Further, City staff would be required to enforce the
new Ordinance in addition to their current workload.
Any violation of the proposed prohibition against declawing would be a
misdemeanor, with the City Attorney’s office having authority to prosecute a violation
as an infraction, consistent with the general penalty provisions in the Culver City
Municipal Code. As an alternative, an administrative citation may be issued for a
violation of the proposed declawing ban.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
There would be no fiscal impacts associated with adopting the ordinance assuming
that it would be promoted and enforced by existing City staff.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance.
MOTION:
That the City Council:
1. Consider introducing a proposed ordinance which would ban performing,
assisting in performing, and procuring onychectomies and flexor
tendonectomies, which are declawing procedures, on cats in Culver City; City of Culver City, California
Agenda Item Report
OR
2. Provide other direction to staff as deemed necessary.
MEETING DATE: November 23, 2009
AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of the Introduction of an Ordinance
Adding Section 9,01 to the Culver City Municipal Code, Prohibiting the
Dec!awing of Cats or Other Animals in The City of Culver City
ATTACHMENTS
Pages
1. Proposed Ordinance 2009- 1-31|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
ORDINANCE NO. 2009- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CULVER CITY,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 9.01.600 TO THE CULVER
CITY MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE DECLAWING OF
CATS OR OTHER ANIMALS IN THE CITY OF CULVER CITY.
WHEREAS, in 2003, the City of West Hollywood, California determined to
adopt a local ordinance that, among other things, prohibited the practice commonly known
as animal declawing within its corporate limits; and
WHEREAS, after trial and upon final and conclusive appellate review, the
City of West Hollywood's ordinance was determined to be valid and enforceable as part of
a city's police powers given the statutory language in effect at that time; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has determined to enact and the Governor
has signed into law Senate Bill 762, which pre-empts current local authority to enact
ordinances similar to that enacted by the City of West Hollywood, but specifically allows for
the continued enforcement of any ordinance in effect on or before December 31, 2009;
and
WHEREAS, there is evidence that links onychectomy (declawing) and flexor
tendonectomy to a high risk of painful adverse and long lasting effects on animals, and that
complications may include damage to nerves, lameness, and chronic pain; and these
procedures may prevent a cat or other animal from being able to extend its claws, leaving it
unable to scratch, and rendering it at a disadvantage in defending itself; and
WHEREAS, there are a number of alternatives to declawing that involve no
physical harm to the animal, including training the pet to use a scratch post, use of
deterrent pheromone sprays, covering furniture, restricting the pet's access to certain areas
of the home, use of plastic nail covers, and more; and
WHEREAS, the City of Culver City enacts this ordinance pursuant to the
authority vested in the City by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution allowing a
ED1|1010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
city to make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and
regulations not in conflict with general laws. At present the State of California does not
prohibit the City from acting to prohibit onychectony and flexor tendonectomy, and
therefore the City is not preempted by Business and Professions Code Section 460 from
adopting this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that prohibiting these procedures will
protect and promote the general health, safety and welfare of animals and humans alike.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Culver City, California,
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 9.01.600 of the Culver City Municipal Code is hereby
added to read as follows:
Declawing of Animals
9.01.600 Onvchectomv (Declawino) and Flexor Tendonectomv Prohibited.
A. No person, licensed medical professional or otherwise, shall perform or
cause to be performed an onychectomy (declawing) or flexor tendonectomy procedure by
any means on any animal within the City of Culver City, except when necessary for a
therapeutic purpose. "Therapeutic purpose" means the necessity to address the medical
condition of the animal, such as an existing or recurring illness, infection, disease, injury or
abnormal condition in the claw that compromises the animal's health. "Therapeutic
purpose" does not include cosmetic or aesthetic reasons or reasons of convenience in
keeping or handling the animal. In the event that an onychectomy or flexor tendonectomy
procedure is performed on any animal within the city in violation of this section, each of the
following persons shall be guilty of a violation of this section: (1) the person or persons
performing the procedure, (2) all persons assisting in the physical performance of the
procedure, and (3) the animal guardian that ordered or requested the procedure.
-2-
30ANDREW WEISSMAN, Mayor
City of Culver City, California
0 FORM:
CAROL A. SCHWAB, City Attorney
-3-
B. Section 9.01.005 of the Culver City Municipal Code shall not apply to this
section. Any violation of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor; however, any
violation may be prosecuted as an infraction, at the discretion of the City Attorney.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Section 619 of the City Charter, this Ordinance
shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. Pursuant to Sections 616
and 621 of the City Charter, prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days after the adoption,
the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance, or a summary thereof, to be published in the
Culver City News and shall post this Ordinance or a summary thereof in at least three
places within the City.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby declares that, if any provision, section,
subsection, paragraph, sentence, phrase or word of this ordinance is rendered or declared
invalid or unconstitutional by any final action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by
reason of any preemptive legislation, then the City Council would have independently
adopted the remaining provisions, sections, subsections, paragraphs, sentences, phrases
or words of this ordinance and as such they shall remain in full force and effect.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of
, 2009.
ATTEST:
MARTIN R. COLE, City Clerk|101010101010101010 10
10|11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30