Council Delays Decision on Closing San Pedro Animal Shelter

The Los Angeles City Council, responding to appeals from animal rights activists and Harbor area residents, agreed Wednesday to wait three months before deciding whether to close San Pedro’s animal shelter and send its pets to a county facility in Carson.

The decision, forged by Harbor area Councilwoman Joan Milke Flores, represented an eleventh-hour reprieve for the San Pedro shelter on Battery Street, a 43-year-old facility targeted for closure by Mayor Tom Bradley for budgetary reasons.

“I’m pleased and grateful. But I wish (the reprieve) could have been longer,” said Yvette Kovary, a San Pedro resident who has championed efforts to save the shelter.

The battle to save the shelter began several weeks ago when the city’s administrative office, declaring the shelter in poor condition, moved on Bradley’s longstanding request to consider closing the facility, which each year houses an estimated 5,400 dogs, cats and other animals.

In a report to the council, city budget analysts agreed that the shelter should be closed, but concluded that building a new San Pedro facility would cost $1.9 million. They recommended that the city close the shelter and enter into a contract with the county to house the stray animals impounded at the San Pedro facility.

But the recommendation ran afoul of Flores, area residents and animal rights activists who argued that San Pedro’s shelter was in need of only minor repairs and that its closure would endanger untold numbers of animals each year.

Noting that the county’s shelter is as far as 15 miles from some parts of San Pedro, opponents argued that the distance would discourage many people from delivering stray animals to Carson. Moreover, they said, the county--unlike the city--does not have regulations forbidding the sale of shelter animals for medical research.

Although a council committee two weeks ago supported the closure, the mounting opposition was apparent Wednesday when about two dozen Harbor area residents and representatives of animal rights’ organizations joined Flores in objecting to the closure.

In a brief speech to her colleagues, Flores originally urged the council to delay any action on the matter for six months. She said the time was needed to resolve differing estimates on the potential savings from closing the shelter; by one estimate, the city would save only $4,000 a year.

“I’m not saying go ahead and spend the $1.9 million (to build a new San Pedro shelter). I’m saying don’t close (the existing shelter) for six months,” Flores said.

At first, several of Flores’ colleagues seemed lukewarm to her request, moving instead toward a proposal that would have delayed the closure only until a contract with the county’s animal regulation department can be finalized.

But that proposal was not voted on after Flores described it as unacceptable to her constituents. “The people in the Harbor area constantly complain that they do not get the services of other parts of the city,” Flores told her colleagues in remarks that were later echoed by several San Pedro residents.

“The proposed closure of the Harbor area animal shelter . . . has struck a chord in the heart of the community,” said Kovary, who with another San Pedro resident, Elaine Ihde, collected more than 1,000 petition signatures in three weeks opposing the closure.

“Our community is distant from the rest of the city . . . and we feel we truly need this particular service,” Kovary said.

Delaying action on the shelter, Kovary said, would enable its backers to mount a volunteer effort at rehabilitating the facility--one that she and others said needs only some cosmetic repairs and minor plumbing.

“If funding these minor repairs is a real problem, we would like the opportunity to get volunteers to perform the work, and we feel we can get them,” Kovary said. “Please give the shelter a reprieve and let the community do what is needed if the city cannot.”

The appeals finally persuaded the council, at Flores’ request, to postpone any action on closing the shelter for three months. During that time, city officials will continue talks with the county about taking over the service, while area residents and animal rights organizations will mount efforts to repair the facility themselves.

“It’s not much time,” Ihde said, “but it’s better than nothing.”