San Diego County Grand Jury
• 2024-2025
Fit To Be Tied! Why Are So Many Dogs Running Wild in San Diego Parks?
⚠️ Aviso de traducción: Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Note: Missing finding numbers detected: F9
Findings and Recommendations 14 findings
F01
SDHS often has fewer than four Park Patrol Officers on duty and two patrol vehicles in use in the City, which fails to meet requirements of the Park Officer Program encompassed in the Agreement between the City and SDHS.
No recommendations for this finding
F02
SDHS relies on Park Rangers to support its efforts in leash enforcement. Fact: City established Park of the Month as part of its effort to achieve fair animal enforcement, focusing on select parks within a different supervisorial district each month. Fact: There are no SDHS officer-initiated patrols at parks outside of Park of the Month, ostensibly giving dog owners outside the Park of the Month district a free pass for eight months of the year. Complaints from other areas are placed in a queue.
No recommendations for this finding
F03
The City’s Park of the Month Program does not clearly set forth expectations on enforcement requirements outside the designated Park. Fact: SDHS is required to submit to the City quarterly and annually written reports including number and type of incidents investigated. Fact: SDHS is required to keep records on all applicable statistics. Fact: Multiple reports by Parks and Recreation state SDHS issued 9,000 citations and warnings during the five-year initial Agreement (2018-2023). Fact: There were 208 animal enforcement citations issued during the first year of the current Agreement (July 1, 2023-June 30, 2024) covering all animal control violations. Fact: There were 25 “Notices to Appear” and 150 verbal warnings issued during 1,693 SDHS “routine inspections” at City parks between January 2024 and February 2025. 21
No recommendations for this finding
F04
The City failed to keep track (or documentation) of the number of leash-law citations issued the first year (July1 2023-June 30, 2024) of the current Agreement with SDHS.
No recommendations for this finding
F05
There was a significant, 90% drop in all animal control citation/warning issuance during the first year of the current Agreement. Fact: The City is not receiving any revenue from leash-law citations. Fact: Leash-law violations in City parks and joint-use areas are cited only as violations of County Code §62.669 Restraint of Dog by Owner, rather than as violations of SDMC §63.0102 (c)(2), “Use of Public Parks and Beaches Regulated.” Fact: Agreement’s Animal Field Services Requirement, Item 12, requires off-leash violations be cited under San Diego Municipal Code.
No recommendations for this finding
F06
Citation issuance using County Code does not meet the requirements of the Agreement.
No recommendations for this finding
F07
Fines collected by the Courts for leash-law violations within the City are not being paid to the City General Fund. Fact: County Code states if a leash is not being held in the hand of a person capable of controlling the animal, the animal is “at large.” Fact: Current Agreement between the City and SDHS defines dogs running-at-large, in progress, as a Priority 2 Fact: SDHS Animal Enforcement classifies leash-law incidents as Priority 3 or Priority 5. Fact: SDHS is inconsistent in how it classifies leash-law violations.
No recommendations for this finding
F08
The City has not adequately monitored SDHS citations. Fact: Animal field services required response times for Priority Levels 2-5 have increased by hours and even days during Fiscal Year 2024. Fact: SDHS has failed to meet required response time for Priorities 2-5. Finding09: The City has not adequately monitored SDHS response times. Fact: Leash-law signs posted at San Diego City Parks and joint-use areas are not consistent in the information they provide. Fact: Leash-law signs do not include SDMC §63.0102 (c)(2), or reference penalties for violations.
No recommendations for this finding
F10
Leash-law signs in City parks are often confusing, contradictory, or display outdated information.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Standardize wording of signs regarding prohibition of off-leash dogs to include correct telephone numbers, Municipal Code citation, and potential (or minimum) fine amounts for violators.
F11
Leash-law signs in City parks do not provide information regarding potential monetary fines for violations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Standardize wording of signs regarding prohibition of off-leash dogs to include correct telephone numbers, Municipal Code citation, and potential (or minimum) fine amounts for violators.
F12
Leash-law signs in City parks do not deter many pet owners from running their dogs off leash in parks. Fact: Areas designated by the City as “Joint-Use” allow SDHS to exercise community outreach, goodwill, and education prior to issuing citations. Fact: Discretionary citation issuance for other than joint-use areas is not defined in the Agreement.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Require SDHS to rigorously enforce leash-law citation issuance, including effective tracking for repeat offenders, with judicious use of education and acts of goodwill limited to joint-use areas.
F13
Leash enforcement on City property often takes the form of verbal written warnings and education from Park Officers even when the incidents do not occur in joint-use areas.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Require SDHS to rigorously enforce leash-law citation issuance, including effective tracking for repeat offenders, with judicious use of education and acts of goodwill limited to joint-use areas.
F14
Humane Law Enforcement Officers scarcely enforce the City’s leash laws. Fact: The Current Agreement stipulates contract performance evaluations may be issued by City as often as City deems necessary. Fact: Performance evaluations are based on criteria including the quality and timeliness of performance.
No recommendations for this finding
F15
A regression in SDHS performance measures warrants a City performance evaluation.
No recommendations for this finding
Additional Recommendations 1
These recommendations are not explicitly linked to specific findings.
-
R9Launch a performance audit and evaluation of SDHS leash law and broader animal enforcement responsibilities to focus on incident response times, use of proper Municipal or County Code citations, and overall citation issuance. REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS The California Penal Code §933(c) requires any public agency which the Grand Jury has reviewed, and about which it has issued a final report, to comment to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the agency. Such comment shall be made no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury publishes its report (filed with the Clerk of the Court); except that in the case of a report containing findings and recommendations pertaining to a department or agency headed by an elected County official (e.g. District Attorney, Sheriff, etc.), such comment shall be made to the 24 Presiding Judge with an information copy sent to the Board of Supervisors. Furthermore, California Penal Code §933.05(a), (b), (c), details, as follows, the manner in which such comment(s) are to be made: (a) As to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following: (1) The respondent agrees with the finding. (2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor. (b) As to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions: (1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action. (2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation. (3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report. (4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefore. (c) If a