The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6.2 ViciousDogAppealKing CITY CLERK File # D[5][Q][Q]-~[O AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5,2004 SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Vicious Dog Hearing Appeal ~ Report Prepared by Amy Cunningham, Administrative Analyst and John Bakker, Assistant City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. Animal Control Report - Detail #212 2. Correspondence and Photographs from King Family 3. Hearing Minutes 4. Hearing Findings & Order 5. Letter of Appeal from Morgan King 6. Resolution RECOMMENDATION: r.:I 1. Open Public Hearing 2. Receive Staff Report and Public Comment 3. Close Public Hearing 4. Deliberate 5. Determination on Appeal FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION: On July 29,2004, staff received a report with background documentation from Alameda County Animal Control regarding a dog-on-dog attack that occurred on July 14,2004. (Attachment 1.) In summary, the report stated that at approximately 3 :25 pm, Crystal Kashima let her dogs out into the rear, fenced yard. Soon after this, she heard a commotion outside and observed her Boxer, "Makaha," engaged in a fight at the rear fence with Morgan King's Akita, "Saake." Ms. Kashima went to the fence, pulled "Makaha" away, and took the dog back into the house. Ms. Kashima indicated that at the same time she was pulling her dog away, someone was on the other side of the fence pulling "Saake" away as well. A veterinary report later supplied to Animal Control by the Kashima's documented that "Makaha" received puncture wounds to the inside of the mouth. The veterinarian concluded that the wounds could only have been inflicted by another dog. The animal control officer's report recommended that a vicious dog hearing be conducted based upon this incident. In accordance with Chapter §5.36 of the Dublin Municipal Code (DMC), the hearing was conducted on August 11,2004 (Attachment 3). The owners of both dogs were in attendance at the hearing. -------------------------------------------------------~----------------------------------------------------- G:\CC-MTGS\2004-qtr4\Qct\ I 0-05-04\as-dog appeaL DOC lCJb3 ITEMNO.~ COPIES TO: CI Based upon information contained within the Animal Control report, the background correspondence and supporting photographs supplied by the parties (Attachments 1 & 2), and subsequent property/fence inspections of both properties, the King dog, "Saake," was declared vicious, pursuant to DMC §5.36.290(A)(3). This section presumes a dog is vicious when it engages in: "An attack on another animal, livestock or poultry, which occurs on property other than that of the owner ofthe attacking dog." At the hearing, the Hearing Director found that substantial evidence existed to conclude that "Saake" was on the Kashima property during the time of the attack. Therefore, the Hearing Director concluded that Saake technically fit the criteria of a vicious dog as outlined in the Municipal Code. The Hearing Director deferred issuance of the final restrictions until completion of a property inspection at Mr. King's home. On August 12, 2004, the Hearing Director completed the property inspection. Consistent with the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, the Hearing Director confirmed the following facts: (a) prior to this incident a standard wooden fence separated the two properties; (b) at the particular location on the fence where it was broken the board could only be displaced by a dog from the King's property, and (c) that upon the fence breaking nothing prevented "Saake" from extending a portion of her body, including her head, onto the Kashima property. The Hearing Director further determined that the heavy wire secondary fencing Mr. King voluntarily installed immediately after this incident took place was adequate to prevent "Saake" from penetrating the fence line in the event a board were to break again. After completion ofthis inspection and upon further review of the evidence, the Hearing Director determined that a property inspection was also needed at the Kashima family's home. On August 18, 2004, the Hearing Director performed an inspection at the Kashima property. The Hearing Director observed that the Kashima's dog, "Makaha," is prevented from getting close to the primary/common fence by an approximately 3-foot high secondary fence, which is set back from the property line approximately 18"-24". During this incident, "Makaha's" body would have been stopped at this small but sturdy, secondary fence preventing anything but his head from extending in the direction of the primary fence. After the property inspections were complete and all evidence was considered, it was apparent that ifboth dogs were near the fence line when the fence board was displaced, "Makaha" physically would not be able to extend himself onto the King property because ofthe secondary fence. And, as no secondary barrier was in existence on the King property, "Saake" would be able to extend herself onto the Kashima property. Therefore, since "Makaha" was physically constrained by the secondary fence from entering the King property, it was determined that "Saake" attacked "Makaha" on the Kashima property, and consequently technically fits the description of a vicious dog pursuant to the Municipal Code. The Findings & Order from the Vicious Dog Hearing were issued on August 26,2004 (Attachment 4), with the following restrictions imposed: 1. The owner shall ensure that "Saake" is only out ofthe fenced backyard or residence when on a 6- foot leash and under the direct control of a competent adult. ~~3 2. The owner shall ensure that the heavy wire fencing voluntarily installed on their side of the primary/common fence subsequent to this incident is maintained in a manner sufficient to contain "Saake" within the fenced yard. On August 30, 2004, pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code §5.36.080, Mr. Morgan King filed an appeal to the Hearing Director's determination (Attachment 5) stating: "We believe the evidence does not support the findings, and the statute has not been applied in a reasonable manner in this instance. We also believe the statute is too vaguely worded, lacks adequate definitions, and failed to provide for consideration of all relevant facts." The findings issued as a result ofthis incident are consistent with past findings and appropriate for the circumstances. In an administrative proceeding such as this, the law requires that "substantial evidence" must exist to support the Hearing Director's determination. The evidence relied upon by the hearing officer, including the fencing configuration on both properties, supports the conclusion that the attack could only have occurred on the Kashima family's property. Staff agrees in general with Mr. King's perspective stated in his appeal that Saake was not entirely at fault and that it was by sheer chance that only Saake could physically cross the boundary separating the two properties. Nonetheless, staff believes Saake's behavior meets the criteria for viciousness, because an attack did take place on property other than that ofthe owner of the dog. However, because of the circumstances of the attack, the restrictions imposed by the hearing officer were more limited than the restrictions that are ordinarily imposed upon dogs that have been declared vicious. In fact, the voluntary actions taken by the Kings to address the situation were considered sufficient by Animal Control and the Hearing Director to reduce the risk of additional incidents from occurring. Consequently, the restrictions imposed as a result ofthe Findings & Order do not require the Kings to take any further action as a result of the Hearing Director's findings. Staff therefore believes that Saake's behavior, although less than severe, meets the technical requirements for a declaration of viciousness and that the limited restrictions imposed are proportionate to Saake's behavior. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the Public Hearing, take testimony and evidence from interested parties, deliberate, and determine whether or not the findings and determination of the August 11,2004, hearing should be upheld. If the Council determines that the findings should be upheld, it should adopt the attached resolution affirming the decision ofthe hearing officer. If the City Council determines that said findings and determination should not be upheld, the City Council will need to issue alternate findings regarding the merits of the appeal, and staff would return at the next meeting with a resolution setting forth the City Council's findings. 3tJb? I, ,( 1'01' ALAME:JA COUNTY SHERIFF'S. OJu.K.liTri- FIELD SERVICES t{.~l;t~lV t~~D JUL 2 9 2Q01¡ Type of Report: Dog on Dog Attack Date of Report: 07-15-04 Reporting Officer G.F. Potstada In #69 Owner King Morgan Last Name First Name 8348 Creekside Drive Address / 925-829-2816 Home Telephone: Victim " Kashima Pam, Last Name First Name 8335 Brittany Drive Address 925-556-9239 Home Telephone: Witness Kashima Crystal Last Name First Name 8335 Brittany Drive Address 925-556-9239 Home Telephone: Witness Morrison Doug Last Name First Name 8348 Creekside Drive Address 925-829-2816 Home Telephone: Witness Last Name First Name Address Home Telephone: Animal: Canine Color: Tan & Black Age: 3 Years Name: "Saake" " License No. AC43042B Exp. 05-15-06 Quarantined At N/A Vicious Dog Hearing Recommendation DUBLIN POUCE SÈ::RVICES Page 1 of 3 Detail Number: 212 Incident Date: 07-14-04 (ii) 1430 hours D. MI Dublin City 925-829-6363 Work Telephone: S. Ilf-," -¡ MI DOB Dublin City 510-486-3445 Work Telephone: K. .J r .... '-, MI DOB Dublin City 925-830-1144 Work Telephone: ... DOB F. MI Dublin City N/A Work Telephone: MI City Work Telephone: Breed: Sex: Weight: Rabies Tag No. City: Master Sheet No. X Yes . r-·1111~~ Jr~ DOB .. Age 94568 ZIP ... Age 94568 ZIP L ,,~.. Age 94568 ZIP .. Age 94568 ZIP DOB Age ZIP Akita F/S 75 lbs. Exp.05-15-06 Dublin N/A No Field Services Bite Form lð-5--ð~ f.¿,,~ ATTACHMENT 1 ~..~ 1'1 Page 2 of 3 On 07-14-04 approximately 1500 hours I received a detail from sheriffs radio regarding a dog on dog attack that occurred about 1430 hours at 8335 Brittany Drive in Dublin. Approximately 1525 hours I arrived at the above address and made contact with dog owner, Pam Kashima and her daughter, Crystal Kashima. Pam was not home at the time of the incident, but Crystal was. Crystal stated that she had come home from work to let the dogs out ofthehouse to go to the yard to defecate. While inside the house she heard a commotion in the backyard and upon going into the backyard observed the family dog, "Makaha", a fawn MIN Boxer fighting with the neighbor's dog, "Saake", a TawnylRed F/S Akita. Crystal ran over to the fence and pulled "Makaha" away and took her back into the house. Crystal also stated that at the same time she was pulling "Makaha" away an unknown party on the other side of the fence was pulling "Saake"away from the fence as well. Crystal's mother Pam Kashima stated that this was an ongoing problem with the neighbor's dog and showed me were the broken fence boards had been pushed out from the neighbor's side and replaced. The fence is of wood construction, 'about six feet in height and every other board faces in toward each neighbor's yard. Several boards on the fence that had been obviously replaced were facing towards the Kashima residence and could be pushed out only from the opposite yard. Kashima further stated that the King's had proposed replacing the fence and sharing the cost. Kashima said that was not acceptable to her. Kashima has instead erected a small barrier fence, consisting of wood and wire, which has been placed about 1-112 feet from the main back fence. Kashima showed me a scratch on "Makaha's" nose; however, it was not apparent whether it was caused by the other dog or by the fence during the altercation. Kashima stated that she would be taking "Makaha" to her vet for an examination. A fax from Kashima's vet, Dr. Pedro Boada of Blue Cross Vet Clinic in San Leandro arrived for me on 07-14-04, after I had left for the day. I did not come to my attention until my return to work from a 4-day weekend on 07-20-04. The fax from Dr. Boada stipulated that there was two puncture wounds to "Makaha's" inner and upper lip area. It did not; however clarifY if these injuries were caused by "Saake" or could have been self-inflicted. Approximately 1545 hours I arrived at the neighbor's residence at 8348 Creekside Drive, Dublin. I spoke with dog owner Morgan King. King stated that he has offered to split the cost of replacing the rear yard fence with the Kashima's, however they refused to do so. I explained the importance of keeping his dog from breaking through the fence. King stated that he was thinking about replacing the fence at his cost, however in the meanwhile he would be putting up some heavy duty wire fencing to prevent "Saake" from getting to the fence boards. On 07-21-04 about 1445 hours, while completing paperwork at the East County Shelter in Dublin, I received a Federal Express Package from Kashima, containing a copy of the vet report as well as correspondences between the Kashima's and their Home Owner's Association dating back to August 20,2003. Approximately 1500 hours I contacted Kashima's Veterinarian, Dr. Boada. Dr. Boada stated that the puncture wounds inside "Makaha's" mouth could only be rrom another dog. I next contacted dog owner, Morgan King and informed him that I had received confirmation that "Saake" did bite "Makaha". I informed King that I was placing "Saake" under home quarantine for the remainder of the ten-day quarantine period. A copy of the Home Quarantine notice was placed in the mailed to King. A records check revealed no previous dog bites or reported attacks concerning these two dogs. Both dogs are currently licensed within the city of Dublin and are current on rabies vaccinations. I recommend a Vicious Dog Hearing. f!7r1!J 1~~ ( 3eo 1'1 Page 3 of 3 t !. Date'" , 9/15/03' I r Rabies va~cinåtionExpinitjon D~fe r Breed Boxer ~: ' ".' . r . A~7?? . HNaka11a n .. Sex ~18:Q1~da'·,(µøun.tyl..Jog ·µc¢fi$ö·,·;·:·.. . The þersò. hAáitie. d berow'¡S'~.eréb... ,Y:~:~ah.t{ ". .1'AI.am~daC()UntY.L~.' ~"'. .J+>.'~."·.'...pad. 0. ,g;.. ,. . .'. . 8/26/.06 . . 4~rS·:l~··2·· 6 ..... . . '. ;.:' ../.. ;,',1,'.. .' N· ·A·· .... . ·',1>0 .' ...... ". :,', :,' " ...... "·0..' '. "¥P ON,· '~(~9tq6," ·jTtfl$:PER:MITEXPJRES." '. ......,.. t> ( B/26/06· PhonEil92SisS6':':923'9 '. . OJ..' ... '. Color Fawn... d ~sh :QCheck 33.3,3 ...f1~~. . .\};ho . "'P.ENÂ~f:Y._· .... . . , -.' . 'iåti4. ·i.~;~Þo: .... .":... l ··M/N .- , i:. , t Owner ·~1:'iA':'·. KaAhinu.· ',.. t."· l.'.:., r.. ~> r. ¡¡'" '.' f,:'" . ..A3jS. R'tO.ithny Drlvli" . ': ~ . ".'.:. ""~"',' ...... ..'". ,',', '.,'....,.:.,: '.' '.'. .~.,.", ~',....'~. ...........'.,..,.. .", "',,,,,¡.,-~-.,.,.'-':: ','.;..", , DOG TAGS MUST BE AFFIXED TO THE COLLAR OF THE DOG AT ALL riMES, ". '."' ,,'_..' "."; .:",', ~.,. ' ." , .'., .'r," .~. '~.. '_., .'.'.... .', "':,~'.O~.' ',.0,,,.., _,"'. ,:~r'·:. , " DUblin" .. ·CA 94' 5 e:o . ,:,n.;.., '.,':1 :.,~.;.".. . .....Sy( " .' , .: ~.' r " . . ;~¡j;,.+:!':1'¿:';"'" 0' .. .'"~;~.~,~~ - . ALPHkCOPY' . ,.' '. :;5;'''':' .~" -.' '. ....~... , ·.........·.~......_o....................,............."'.. .........~_.~,.......'I.,o-_... ~-......... --. --'-'~-._~.,,_._.. ........----..~.. ..... . . ., '.. .. -- E/Th.tl~.:'~~h·.l^;t?!un~?'d" JqN';I>/~IG1l· ······.~I!.rt SWIIU'S. No.AC30~~~ "Breed "Akita L,'" '; "';, ""saåk.e'· , I',;,.:,',', ,,:Age. 2~'1~. ',., , ' ,', Sex 'r,' oWDer· JiØ~9-aJl ,& ,Nà.~' ~,iTU¡' ," , '··i··'~ . ". ' Þ ""':',8:&4,1'1 ~~~AkRj rip. rndvli'l r: I!:'~' ; ....." , . ,,' M,.Ø.·: Color TaWnvlReddk maskO, CashÖ......· , , ' ' #Ö6~B5601925B , FEE 1 1 " 00 . ,,- . " > . '"". , ' , . .' . . ,.., .. . &: . .. ., . , , ' ".~. ."... ~... ^ Date'9/Úii03 'PhQ/1,p'uq'·S./.g,')q~h'~'h3 ~ .. ~ , Wg2518~9~28¡6 ' Rabies Vac~inati~n; Expiration Dáte ' , '.' 5/15/06.,' , tr/s PENALTY -,.- ð " 'tOTAL , 1-1. 00 . , .....:'::.r:.:~.'_...,' ..," 1.1 ~:.., ." ". ,,: -.', ,.....,. :'.,"- .,. oW ...,.':"" ~:':".."·T_.., ..'0"·'. ..", ' ." "0..: ,.."' ...~".-....o:: " DOG TAGS MUST BE AFFIXED TO THE COLLAR OF THE DOG AT ALL TIMES. .. ' ..':'.',.. '..~~:' ,....... ': ','" ',' .,:". '..:.':' '. ·',"'.··I).,~·~.:':'.:.'··:·, '...~., ~..~'....'-. .. .'.'. '"....~:..;...,. CÁ~ 945.6&,,·J)y ijieto 'f:;-f µ V ALPHA cOPY.' I'· ;/ (.15 V 1~ ¡yv' frO rri . .ft. @ - ~ þJj91 - ~ ;;p-,~_...-- "- Qv- ' -.......-........ __......,_. .-- ..~.,-..._.-......~-.:....,., .., ~1Jb1~ ._-........."_.__.~~~-..........-~--...,.......~~. ......n."'.._.J.h::.._ .., ~........¡" '" "',.0·',' '. .__.,.~..._,..........__......,._~~.,. ',"~ ."~ ........~... '''''';~' .-........-...-..-,-.: ·W~~~~_ ......_~~~.~ -~.-~'J'.11'o11':''W''.............~~, ',' . . ,.~~~-_.~~^-_...'-----....~-.. .~. " ",;p.-' t " TO #é¥I b/l,..tl ß/o/ 6 Owner/Responsible' Person 9ó?S'- 2d9., ól2/¿. Phone Number ALAMEDA COUNTY HEALTH CARE SERVICES AGENCY Public: Health Service NOTICE TO QUARANTINE ANIMAL K.3t/tf ~£'S/~ .2);, Address 7)p./;J¡;' City Description of Animal 1Î.Ie' rr.4 /, -¡;;~ / ¡{¿c!' ri. In compHance wit e 17, C,yfo ia Administlfltive Code~ Section, 260~ (b), (1), ,(2), and (3) you are hereby notified th~t it .is necessary that your .tP, be Isolated In Strict confinement under proper care and observatIon In a place and manner appr d by the Health Officer for a period of14days (dogs and catsl0d;ays) after the day of infliction of the bite. Approved places for confinement ate: local animal control shelters, Oakland SPCA, or veterinary hospitals. Confinement on owner's premises, at an approved boarding kei1neIorat a vetetinarian's hospiral maybe permitted under conditions oudined for Isolationòn owner's premises on reverse side. The animal may not be moved without pernlission.The Public He:alth Service assumes no responsibility for expenses incurred in ,isolating an animaL ' Ifanim~1 is unlicensedandnotvaccinatedfor r~bies, Iici.;risirig and vaccination shall be required prior to ani'Tlal's release from quaranbne. BY OÂbERÓFTHE COUNTY HEALTH OFFicER. D.reot~,to ·c?!j-/~ ~..0' ...... . .. .. .D'tò of ¡<."". . ¡"ued brrr· q'.t;~T~~~.~~~.) ,: 'AgençyAtlSO. ~/M"t ,'él;itk¿'t". , . b~~e;:'1~)(R~i?ir'::".·..·.··.,·..."~··.·. "...... ........ ,.' Received bY:~; ¡JJny' .....(I~~("i'e; hql . . .71.. 2;;J.2··.~~.ý.·. .Q).' /S"'It? 1Itl5.",.'." 4OO-WG4:1O/97 '/, '. ,~ '. .' . . : ':.':¿ ..~ .'.J.,,;,:.:'.,. r; .i>" ",:,~ '.:. ;';1.'., ".~" .,~'.;,.j: ':! '\~.....; \(':'/:·,':1~ :'ì '. . "'I.' :>',¡')i::: .,~ ...~;':::. .~,¡ ;'. ,,,:.:I~.;,ii~ ,.,.:." . - . . ·,:.tfìJ*·.C>J;¡.·.~£, -','"'.' fSSU¡;DTC)~IMIiL;QWNER 'RËi'AINEtI:I;Í)¡ iS$UiN(,3 AGE;NGY SËNT1'::ijNé;E 'rÖOIir1'\CT OFFIOE, 'ENvrRöN~ENT1L HËAi,THSERVICES ,,:': '...'~;,) , , RE (~E IV-·~'''' ]) . - ,J.' ~_.; . " . J:!.: ._..' JUt 2 9 DUBliN 'Cblc:õl c:Áty. / ~.:< tJ-t:'L/ ¡Jffàr. G~ !í//¡,~ tI1íl~ {}. ~//n4 {ft1fypf '" 1Jv!t ~;. ~ð' (}.ed-&~.ðY ~r -J-Haclad tG Ita ~ ~ ~htJ iWd-- rue¡- dug. , ~ !at s tv /1lj( ,tun C;f¡:,{ n:.. aJt"')..(/1<:t <.S 1 /1J'1 Ct¿ M frjJ- ~ C),~~. ,þ &eJ-c, aft¿[ ffiØ -ø?t'.:" ~ HIe µpj/ aI«J k.ænð~ I{ ~r jà'CfttI"BV' ~17 /t-ú ~nLS k../.... ~¿.sAH-1'i¡ öZ-U ~ Ar J7~-"Pl'P~:;3Wc: V,f - --I tJ" .' ar,...-r¿,r~ ¡ç~!5 ðrl!f:::t;.~ pm /Q'~h¿<- '-{QJt.J1o. ~ 1A¡Îl?/' " ~.i~. _ ìftç ~"'r;~Q .. - r, .. ~~EMPO ' P':'TE ", . ,- MASTER PROBLEMS . NEDICA T'ON '7: Iÿ..A! ~- . I. ! . . '- . .-. '1 ùb 1" July 20, 2004 ALAMEDA ANIMAL CONTROL Attn: Officer George Potstana SUBJECT: DOG ATTACK 8348 Creekside Drive, Dublin I faxed a copy of the doctor's report on Wednesday afternoon which detail that punctUre wounds were found inside of Makaha's upper lip and cheek confirming that he was actually bitten by their dog" He was seen by Dr. Peter Boardo at Blue Cross Veterinary Clinic - PH #{51 0) 276-8770. I will be fOlwarding pictures of Makaha's wounds, along with copies of correspondence of past reports of property damage to the fence caused by the King's dog(s). These instances have made us fearful to be in our own back yard. Because of this situation, we have kept our dogs inside the house for their safety since we never know when their dog( s) may break through the fence. They are only let out for supervised play times which is when this incident occurred. As you explained, any time an actual bite attack occurs, your office initiates procedures that the dog owner must comply with to restrain their dog. It is Wlfortunate that it had to get to this point since they never acknowledged the seriousness of this situation with the numerous times their dog broke through the fence. We would appreciate a follow up call to let us know actually what the status of this complaint is and what the other owner is required to do about controlling their dog, which will help to give us some peace of mind that my family and our dogs can be out in our yard safely. Please forward a copy of your report at your earliest convenience. f you have any other questions, or if you need more information from us, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, .. Myron and Pamela Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive Dublin, CA 94568 925.556.9239 .~ &1ø ß¢e> \û~1~ t~ " .' ,", ",.. '¡. f ~. \ i 'b '1~ l aóh1ÞJ I' i 13~1~ P . !.,J.;.:',I' j" ",':ff. 'fi-.~ ,~""""",,~,::';;~ "~_.,;~.. ......' , ..~, ,. " ".'.'.' \ ,.:" ",.,;.:.t;:'t '.. ..' .'. .·'oi···· l Lf'b 14 July 15,2004 SILVERGATE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSN. % Common Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Rd, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 Attention: Ms. Renee Vizza Community Manager , SUBJECT: 8348 Creekside Drive - Dog Complaint Dear Ms. Vizza: As you are well aware, we have been complaining for almost a year about the numerous incidents where the dog from the King's residence has been breaking through the fence. We have advised you that we are concerned for our personal safety as well as the safety of our dogs. As we feared, on July 14, one ofthe King's dogs broke though the fence again and tlús time bit our dog. Fortunately, the barrier on our side helped to keep the other dog from coming completely into our yard. If it wasn't for that, our dog would have been more severely injured. We were lucky that my daughter wasn't bitten as well when she went to assist our dog. She was extremely distraught and was afraid that she too, would be bitten as she tried to get their dog off of our dog. Someone from the King's home had to come and pull their dog back from their side of the fence. Be advised that the Alameda Animal Control has also filed a report regarding this vicious dog attack. We feel that the inaction by the Homeowners Association has allowed this matter to escalate to this state. lam once again formally requesting all letters, meeting minutes of what was communicated to the King's on our behalf so we can forward to the Alameda Animal Control for their records. Sincerely, -.. )~/JUÚf ~ I Myron and Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 cc: Alameda County Sheriff's Dept - Animal Control \ ;-"'~ 1'1 Óht1- /Lt:<O¿JLj !/fèer Gé~~ !tlsþrnt'{ dÛt //jif£¿ú. (). dt-1I/71/l( LffYlM/ £)o(j Alf¡t{'ß::' S?3-zI¡f C/'té'-KSú{e,,{}y btW¿J1- .JHa tlact td !-tel dDU-t'¥ Y'é!¡O~yf *heJ Tttfif YWf dog , Æ{t7Æd!rq !>t{Sftl/m4 jMif7Dfr.{!C aJcu/1d.s I Ì1S1tte. I1Ú it!. Þj CJ1~ú6. '1 EffJc a kt i/u/ -Iv ~.{r re~. /{Ie uÚI a.hiJ k¿enæ'/~? '" crr1- r'¿fr~1'V4 8I1n.(JI1J' µ# i-lØlInd'S ...._ '. C/l..{/ YJt¿ ar J71--4--þ.-::344Lb. h..//1 ~{¿,.sI;í'fl"::t ,'~ ~ I . ~~I 1/ :51//lCe ¡--¿..ee¡. fj1g ¿g /31/ f/tf ~ 1ft' Illm K"'¿¡;!:'¡/ /?1 <-- ,--:hI ~-1A - tl'l--o.l (*~/11è .I " 'f]J~ ~ ìl¥-f'tv r' 1ft üffttô . ,.;:..ME OF PET . MASTER PROBLEMS p.~ TE NO......... . , SO A P _ PROBL·EM. HISTORY. EXAM. PROCEDURES ~(t¡{hPt /' CYYo{ PIIY5ICAI. EXAMlNÂ1IoN MEDICATION FEE tÎ. cltt ",.,¡¡,,¡ 1JI ~ ø1/fl5lJtE OJ IiIIIIJD. .tS...... 1fIft15 .... 1fIIY clJ.trtJ D~ ..r c...., 0..... cwaøiJ Dirt....... cW"""¡ ok...... tfJfMS .... f1II_ "..... nlJ1'1t11f1 øf".,¡ an-- ...,¡ c"'" SI'SlM c....., JIIIII5 0"""" - D""'" D~~ cllllt"- c~~ c~ ø.-_.~...,r , r . D c8r ~- 4û~ 10cnvr-clt> r - J " o ~ It) ~ 01:03P Blue Cross Vet Cl;n;c \1 C'b 14 1-510-276-8770 P.01 . .. E lIl- t- <: « . o:Ë .. õ c: .g õi o Q . Õ .. ..!? "t! <: . G c: ;; ,:; ·0 III 'i x f '- ':J'~ (/)1. ~":'~ · <:"t! Eo = i g.¡: .. .0 ...:;:¡~ . . :. ~ ~« a 4 õ w ~;;. ~ ..«§i .. w-oo 2' .2." ¡_ ~ ~g:~ä W « ,<:-·w , f/l1U+-Z ~ t;K:tío ..... o ... II: is iii ! ~ i .. ~ I è o a: o ... ð <XI .r;; Q i ~ ~ u< u f2 ~ .. ~ð*J Z ~N _0_ a:a:o ",Qìñ 1-2- w « .. >~~ rnzo rn«J: 0(1)0.. a:'W (Jw...J w?¿~ :3~ ........ mg ~ > W It '!i. o >- ;J" I- (I » 0 O:~G~!1 ~ >- I-~ -0 « c (I ~>-~zg 01-- 1110 ~ Z (I -~~Wo ~I-«« w- I- 0 > ->-~ow(lI 0 (I ~~ >w(l >~~ a: :ø~~ã~~ w~; ~ OZ~ _U ~ 0 ~ouo 0:< Z~Z >- o~< æz< w I-~«~(II-o~d «(I« « ..I~Õ ti«~:¡: õ ««zoz~OI-I- ;jZI 0.. go~~~x æ ~ gß~~~w9~~ ~~~ I 2~ 00:(1) Zow « 0: m~~U0Imor 01-w ..I . :OOO~OOOiO~OOO~ODOOOOOOOOiOOODOOOD~g ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ e~ .. ~ ... g .( II u .¡ :E ::¡ .J < I- .. IL Ii ! .. l' III l- II> > rj I / 0 It .. I III ! III III 'I'¡'~ ~ :~1'\ -....;;;¡ ~, w::t I.! z ~¡~ ~ æ Zø o 2', I «!!! Z It ::EI-0ø :r ¡:: t- ~ ~:.' (I N ~ t: en 2 I- >- I- Z ¡: Z I- « ~ ¡: 'I - z 2' W ~ I- (I ø ~ <1: w <1: _ ~ ~>O:..I () ~~~~5 > ~~(Izo:~~~m 0 ~ I-::E~~~ z O:(Ia:~o:o« a: ~«zQWI-«O:o:::Ew z(i ~<1:0:r0 2 ~¡:~~>~o: =~<..IQI-~(IW~O~I-~, o~~ (/) >~~~~ ~m~¡:(g~~~bª ~~~::t~e~~~~:;~~ I~!¿t:;~ ~ UJ ·'let;:, Zml-~to:a:z~..I «a::ø«WO::H/HI:l-ø_Ow ¡wown:: I- o~wwo ~C!!!WW«etCI« Yooz~w~œ«<etw~ owZ~ u oærz oæo:r..l~~~O:U Q~z«-::E~<wooz~~ Œ(/)«(I ~ DOD~ODOOOOOODO ~DDDt\DOODOOOOOD a. ODOD~ ..,¡ I .,¡ "'\. ..¡ ~ II ~ ~ $ ~~ .~ ~ ~:~ ,~ "- ...... ~ ~ { ~~ ~ t...,.~·' ~. ~ ~ SiIvergate Highlands Homeowners Association c/o Common Interest Management Services 3lS Diablo Road, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 March 5, 2004 Myron & Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Animal Concern Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kashima: l~~1'1 This letter is sent in response to your letter of February 26, 2004. I apologize that the enclosures were omitted from the mailing. Please find enclosed infonnation provided by the Kings regarding the fence/ dog concern. Please keep me apprised of the situation. Sin , i :~~--- Community Manager By direction Silvergate Higlùands Homeowners Association Cc: Alameda County Sherriff's Department - Animal Control Division H:\Silvergate Highlands\Correspondence\8335 Brittany dog 0304.doc PhODe 925-743-3080 Fax 925-743-3084 \~ 'b 14 .' ;.' Jc' t)'''' <j \j November 10, 2003 Myron RE: Fence replacement Dear Myron: Could you tell us if you arc agieeable to going in 50iSO with us on having the entire fence replaced? We will have it constructed so the boards are nailed on our side, which will prevent our dogs from knocking them down into your yard. Find enclosed a copy of the. contract. Y ourshare would be $ 1.870. If we have your agreement to go ahead. please sign or initial the contract and fax or mail it back to us. Morgan D. King Nancy Finley-Kin 8348 Creekside Drive Dublin, CA 94568 (925) 829-2816 home (925) 829-6363 work 7 , vJ)JiJ/ VJ0 \ . rtC~ i. / ~~}¡J '( , . /'" / Thanks1 I ! C·, · , j .::::~-Ir"~' h..c. I,.lh~ ; ,. BORG REDWOODFEN~ES ~~ R111._~ r!CI'.1nt.'o. \'A 'j4')h(-, .. ",. "..' ì,'"i (')~1) ,(:hA\~~; ¡:: .1:\ i q ~; \ 1(, I . : 4 "6 Fences · Decks · Retaining \Valls · Chain Link Liietìme \Varranty Vinyl FENCING CONTRACT 'P~~'E__Jl~_,_~)__ ___. '.\'''\\:'('rg-k;h'O:\~:'ln ~ .(j '''-'__-~ JOB NAME - - -!t.rl- "--iJ~SY~:'-"#:illW3-_5f11J1__-- __.__._._____.___ ..__.,___.... ____ JOB LOCATION ..0 ~- ----rf-!.. '71 pr. JOB CITY___..__, __._. ZIP ODE ~!L1j{¿ð---_ ~-_.--.~-~---_. ~._______~_ "____. __.. CAOSSSTREET_.51 ~ _________~ PHONE(H)~~~_.._ (w).2:iJ~~3..__.. FAX GENERAL EXISTING CONDI};JONS ------.--_____.-,-___ 1. TERRAIN CiJ=LAT ~ SLOPE 2. F~NCE EXISTS? 0 NO ðhs ST~ ~~l.Þ---- ___. _n__ " 3. CONDITION OF EXISTING FENCE7 -f?t>U¥-- _____ CAUSE OF DAMAGE? --..L.Af~....__..-.---ßiij IY9~-_72u.!..lJ- 4 VEGETATION -:&'fNO ^'"ù~S~ 1 5. REPAIR EXISTING __~___.___..._____'______._ OF FENCE. 6. REMOVE EXISTING -~~_ LN. FlOf, ENCE. HAUL OFF PROPERTY BY: I~ CONTRACTOR :J OWNER 7 INSTALL NEW PRESSURE TREATED POSTS tN 4 OF CONCRETE AT APPROX. _rr.~___ ON CENTER."..>.a4X4 :,J 4x6 :J 6xò 8 INSTALL KICK BOARD »N9... Jtt YES SIZE INSTALL BULKHEAD Q YES ;:J NO SIZE .~__..__~ 9. INSTALL ~ NEW -~_~_ REDWOOD RAILS - CON COMMON ':J CON HEART 10 INSTALL ~ NEW ---JK~~ REDWOOD FENCE BOARDS .ft'COt~ COMMON ;.) CON HEART 11. INSTALL.-"'__ 0 NEW ~ GATES C) REUSE GATES ::J OTHER 12 FENCE TOPTO:~UN LEVEL ~ CONTOUR ~TEP. \:)'ITH THE SLOPE OFT~~-~~O~·N;- .- ..u-~.m_·__.__n . ..-----.. 13. SEAL. CONDITION AND PROTECT FENCE FOR AN ADDITIONAL _.~~~ LN. FT ONE SIDE OF FENCE; _"::r...-" LN. FT BOTH SIDES O¡: FENCE. (OPTIONAL) PLOT PLAN NOT TO SCALE Y.Þ @/I()' 'Ã") / / /" ..A.t:J ~a-~-. .!rl!lf-L&Lit:Q M &>>"')(d, pI< ~R/b~~ -,P.L¡:::}:li.tt:) ,r;h hai/¡}t.J f?Al ~_ ·1 " '---~'-;K -- , rt: . e~~e? ___~!.n___.__ í e..C1 r~~ t1.~_w:fd. q 'f;'4<~' FRONT TOTAL__..__3_.~___..__~__.__. / q ï fCf'1.o ($50C.00 MINIMUM CHARGE) Jaiver of Re~ponsibility: BORG REDVVOOD FENCE hoids no liability for landscaping, sprinkler. drain. teleµnone, ~aI;¡ral gas, electrical or property tines. Aoo!IIO''\aliy, we '1uld '10 !iatJih!:; ., sp::Uing & crackIng of wood unless craCks a,-e more than 1" wide horizontally_ This job will require d!illing ¡me unknown geological conditio'ls. BORG REDWOOD Ff.'JCES w,;i WDPly Ie highest quality CQ'Ivemional augers to perform t~;s lask. In the event we Shovld encounter geolcgic1\1 forma,ions ¡hat inhibit iJS to drili 1'0" ~n 5 minutes. addit.onal cha'çes '\.¡iy xc;;: customer or any other IJerson(sì stop the job orœ in progress, a $SO ()()Ihr or $250.OQfday çharge will be assessed. I have rea.d ¡¡nd ur.oe<StaM a!l 01 Me above ço-.oi~,ons ALL OF THE ABOVE WORK T BE COMPLETED IN A SU ., NTIAL AND WORKMANLIKE MANNER ACCORDIf\jG TO THE STAN)ARO PAACT,CES FOR THE SU\~ OF' l\.YMENT: . __ ____~____ __~________~_____~lla~_.____._. .._.~_ ._~ II accounts not paid with thirty ( ) days of the d e shown aOO 'e are ~ubjeçl to a lale char9!'! of 1;0'0 per month (IB% per annum) untrl P'!lt.1 in 1;,11. fA GUARANTEE JR ---lU__- YEARS FROM CONTRACT DATE. BORG FENCES WILL REPLACE ANY POSTS. FOUND UPON EXAMINtlT!ON TO BE ROITEQ. -115 GUARANTEE COVERS MATERIALS ONLY. ALL GATES ARE GUARANTEED 1 YEAR FROM INSTALLATION DATE. U("": =-ìÎl 7':', I I , L , __ I HOUSE I I I --, BI!3=-BOARO O~ BOARD t";S~f="AN S;-Y",F. fj":HI''/9'~'j¡ P:F-P'CTLRE ¡:8AME P." ~PAE,'>SUI~E TR!" ATE::; PLA~JI REMOV~i_J..__..____.__"._ ._. , NEW FE.liCE~____il;(. I' ~-_l.-/i20_;rþc -~-...-- ·_____n. -,}.--_____. ....... ..--.f d I ~-i_.ft1-1t1(f$--"~~_..._. m._~_____....$_______. _...._. _'-.... --~-~~~--_.~~- '~_._,.._-_.~.- --~_._..~_.- ..-.-- -- -~-~ '-~'--~-'ì ('-~'" i¡"!.~ '''''~'t;'~IC1''''I~ t i~r'J ...a~·'., ·"'Y t.onHac';or, 5ut~ cnlí~c;~tc~, 'Hb,)rer,. ~~¡:¡tet!{\lmrtn 0" ot..,er perSO:ì wt'-(, r-.bpS. :.;: 1i'!1~FJ\'e y(.;.H ~;J'('r:~r:y í;ltHJ :~ :".)\ r,¿:,; k.( .", ~:. ;.;'!b'.;- :..(._ '. "~ ~,~ .. -,..',' r .t..·,··, ,J i~:.. ',...~I'r. ¡"jf"\H "I~i VO:.itf :~f·::':",f :~{ C": ::'~;'I_I~'-,! ~rE ~~qt~lr'?d b). ,h'" f~ b~'· I :-:,õ;.-r:r.f.C .~,..,(~ F¡'~~.J,.';i1.I...('~ t',-' n I ~.::-n!"H:-:\-\t ~ ....:.<~ ! ':·.f.~-.r.~ S: ..' ., . , February 26, 2004 SILVERGATE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSN. % Conunon Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Road, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 Attention: Ms. Renee Vizza, Community Manager SUBJECT: Dog Complaint - 8348 Creekside Drive, Dublin Dear Ms. Vizza, We are in receipt of your letter ofFebmary 23. ·Please note that no attachments were received with your letter so we do not know what correspondence you are referring to that was supposedly sent to us attempting to get this matter resolved. Let us restate our issues: I. The King's aggressive dog has broken through the fence ITom their side. We are concerned for our safety because of this. 2. The King's dogs annoying barking when we are out in our yard is still a problem and continues on a daily basis. We disagree with the flawed logic that a new fence will modify the dog's behavior. We will continue to advise the Association of issues with their dog's barking or aggressive behavior. Sincerely, I~' / Myron and Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 cc: Alameda County Sheriffs Office - Animal Control á\"b1." ;>. ~OO14 SiIvergate Highlands Homeowners Association c/o Common Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Road, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 February 23, 2004 Myron & Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Animal Concern Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kashima: This letter is sent in response to your letters regarding your neighbor's dog. I understand that the enclosed documents have been sent to you in an attempt to get this matter resolved. I am fOlwarding all correspondence to you regarding this matter as a courtesy. It appears to me that this matter can be resolved once and for all, ifboth you and the King's can replace this fence as soon as possible. Please keep me apprised of the situation. L- Cc: Alameda County Sherriff's Department - Animal Control Division H:\Silvergate Highlands\Correspondence\8335 Brittany dog 0204.doc Phone 925-743-3080 Fax 925-743-3084 ( ~ 3ot, 1~ January 7, 2004 SIL VERGA TE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSN. % Common Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Rd, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 Attn: Renee Vizza, Community Manager Dear Renee: SUBJECT: DOG COMPLAINT 8348 Creekside Drive, Dublin We are extremely disappointed at the Board's lack ofactÏon regarding our complaint regarding the potentially dangerous situation with our neighbor's dog. Apparently our numerous letters and pictures did not adequately convey to you the serious nature of what we are exposed to on a daily basis. , Our letters have explained that we have NOT had satisfactory resolution with our neighbor - which is why we brought the matter up to the Association. We will continue to infonn the Association of future incidents. We do NOT consider this a closed matter. Sincerely, f' ," ......i-ç: ¿,¿ ~~mA I ~I ~~ 'L-. / M~on & Pam Kaslúma 8335 Brittany Drive Dublin, CA 94568 Cc: Alameda County Sherriff's Dept - Animal Control Division SiIvergate Highlands Homeowners Association cIa ColDlilon Interest Management Setvices 315 Diablo Road, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 December 15, 2003 Myron & Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Animal Concern Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kashima: ~4~ l'î This letter is sent in response to your letters regarding your neighbor's dog. The Board briefly discussed this matter in Executive Session following their last meeting, which was held on October 22, 2003. The Board has determined that as long as both parties are taking the necessary steps to resolve this concern and bring this matter to closure, where all parties would be satisfied, the Association has no further action to address. Please keep me apprised of the situation, should it worsen. Thank you in advance for your patience and cooperation! Sincere!y , . '.r ~..., ") :/ i·k~. Rdíee VlZza .. .. ./ - Community Manager By direction Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association Cc: Alameda County Sherriff's Department - Animal Control Division Phone 925-743-3080 Fax 925-743-3084 ~5~ 1~ December 1, 2003 SIL VERGA TE HOMEOWNERS ASSN % COMMON INTEREST A TIN: Renee Vizza SUBJECT: Minutes of Board Meeting Dear Renee: Please fOlWard a copy of the minutes from the last board meeting. I presume you were able to address the concern we had with our neighbor regarding their issue with their dog. I would like to see what the outcome was when it was discussed. Sincerely, ~~-n:<A-~ I.~ela S. Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive Dublin, CA 94568 , 2.!.oùb Î ~ October 28, 2003 SIL VERGA TE HIGHLANDS OWNERS ASSN % Common Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Rd, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 Attention: Renee Vizza Community Manager SUBJECT: 8348 Creekside Drive Dear Ms. Vizza: On October 27, another board has been knocked loose and the fence is open. We will once again repair the fence as soon as we docwnent this latest occurrence. These pictures will be forwarded via mail. Please advise what occurred at the Homeowners Association meeting to address this matter with the homeowner at this residence. Sin~erely, QKk/"c-' . I, '.... <~c;ü: /;rl_"L- Myron and Pam Kashima /8335 Brittany Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 cc: Alameda County Sheriff's Dept - Animal Control ---l ~l6b 11 October 21, 2003 Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Assn. % Common Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Road #221 Danville, CA 94526 Attention: Ms. Renee Vizza Community Manager SUBJECT: Board Of Directors Meeting Dear Ms. Vizza: We both work at our small business and will be unable to attend the Board Meeting on 10/22. We trust that you have enough infonnation to present our issue with the dog at 8348 Creekside Drive. We will forward a picture of the last incident when we develop the film. Please let us know what the outcome is after this matter is presented at the meeting. Sincerely, l::::¡= 8335 Brittany Drive Dublin, CA 94568 ~<ÞOb í4 October 10, 2003 SIL VERGA TE HIGHLANDS OWNERS ASSN % Common Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Rd, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 Attention: Renee Vizza Community Manager SUBJECT: 8348 Creekside Drive Dear Ms. Vizza: On October 9th, another board has been knocked loose and the fence is open. We will once again repair the fence as soon as we document this latest occurrence. These pictures will be forwarded via mail. Please advise what action is being taken to resolve this matter with the homeowner at this residence. Sincerely, Myron and Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 cc: Alameda County Sheriffs Dept - Animal Control · ~~ "b1~ Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association CIO Common Inten:st Management Services 315 Diablo Road, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 October 7, 2003 Myron &Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Animal Concern Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kashima: This letter is sent in response to your letter of October 6, 2003 regarding a new incident involving a dog from 8348 Creekside Drive. Please be advised, I will present your concerns to the Board of Directors at their next meeting for their review. Thank you in advance for your patience and cooperation. S~/]Y'Å ~4~~..- ~./ / ~munity Manager By direction Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association Phone 925-743-3080 Fax 925-743-3084 October 6, 2003 SIL VERGA TE HIGHLANDS OWNERS ASSN % Common Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Rd, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 Attention: Renee Vizza' Community Manager SUBÆCT: 8348 Creekside Drive Dear Ms. Vizza: On October 4th, the dog :trom the above residence has once again broken through the fence. This time, two boards came down creating a huge opening. The boards were held up only by our second protective fencing that we put up. We have taken pictures of this most recent occurrence to'further document the serious nature of this situation. These pictures will be forwarded via maiL Contrary to what the owners have claimed, we could see no additional boards on their side of the fence in this area where their dog keeps coming throug~ which is why we continue to have these occurrences. It doesn't matter that they state they will keep the dogs inside the house more often... we are still subjected to the aggressive behavior during the times we are in our backyard with our dogs. This dog has caused property damage to the fence on numerous occasions. We have replaced several boards and made repeated repairs because we are concerned about our personal protection. AB we have reported, we cannot allow our own dogs to be in the yard without our supervision because we are never sure when their dog will break through the fence. We need your assistance to intervene in this situation before something tragic happens. Sincerely, Myron and Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 cc: Alameda County Sheriff's Dept - Animal Control 3D ~ 1"( 3t "b 1~ September 15, 2003 Sheriff Charles C. Plummer Alameda County Sheriff s Office Field Services 4595 Gleason Drive Dublin, CA 94568 SUBJECT: Dog Complaint Dear Sir: On September 2nd, I spoke with Officer Bowman regarding a problem with our neighbor at the back of our property. We have had several incidents oftheÏr dog breaking through the fence. In addition, we had recently received a complaint about our dogs' barking and running loose. In a letter to your office of August 28, we clarified that our dogs are kept inside and are always supervised and at no time do our dogs run loose. When I spoke to Office Bowman to file a complaint regarding our neighbor's dog, I was told that she could not accept our complaint unless it was a dog bite/attack situation. I inquired as to how it was that we had received a written complaint and she told me that only anonymous complaints were accepted and a letter is then sent to the resident, even though no formal investigation necessarily occurs. It is very frustrating that even though I am reporting a very serious situation where we no longer feel safe in our backyard, we could not get anyone from Animal control to accept our complaint unless we submitted it anonymously. We can call in an anonymous report ifthat will result in a letter or some type of action to our neighbor. I am asking for your verification if this is the process that we need to follow to get some assistance rrom Animal Control to help us in this matter. Sincerely, Myron Kashima 32- ~ 11 Silvergate Highlands Owners Association c/o Common Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Road, Suite 221 DanvilJe, CA 94526 September 12, 2003 Myron & Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 ; RE: Animal Concern Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kashima: This letter is to let you know that your concerns with the dog at 8348 Creekside Drive have been discussed. The owners of 8348 Creekside have agreed to put additional boards on the fence to make it stronger and will also keep the dogs inside the house more often. If you have any other concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, Renee Vizza Community Manager By direction Silvergate Highlands Owners Association Phone 925-743-3080 Fax 925-743-3084 October 6, 2003 SILVERGATE HIGHLANDS OWNERS ASSN % Common Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Rd, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 Attention: Renee Vizza, Community Manager SUBÆCT: 8348 Creekside Drive Dear Ms. Vizza: On October 4th, the dog ITom the above residence has once again broken through the fence. This time, two boards came down creating a huge opening. The boards were held up only by our second protective fencing that we put up. We have taken pictures Qfthis most recent occ1,lITence to further document the serious nature of this situation. These pictures will be forwarded via mail. Contrary to what the owners- have claimed, we could see no additional boards on their side of the fence in this area where their dog keeps coming through, which is why we continue to have these occurrences. It doesn't matter that they state they will keep the dogs inside the house more often... we are still subjected to the aggressive behavior during the times we are in our backyard with our dogs. This dog has caused property damage to the fence on numerous occasions. We have replaced several boards and made repeated repairs because we are concerned about our personal protection. As we have reported, we cannot allow our own dogs to be in the yard without our supervision because we are never sure when their dog will break through the fence. We need your assistance to intervene in this situation before something tragic happens. Sincerely, ~-rc::::.;...o" --. - a.--(.c::'-P--7zA- yron ~nd Pam Kashima 335 Brittany Drive, Dublin, CA 94568 cc: Alameda County Sheriffs Dept - Animal Control 3~ 1> 14 , . 1: ., .- ~.n:W" ""f;, ~'. 11r.4'·.' '.' 'r .~,. A .3£.1. rrc14 Cor 4 I V\dtU~ Rtf1'¡e) ( 3ÞOb 11 ~ ~ ~ '-~ ~~ ~ ~ j~ -id ~ ...~ \Í' > \ ~{J è:- ,~ S --V ç \f? ~ ç c- ~ (3 ~¡ ~- dij- -:L 1: ~ "~ '-..> ç::- + 2s ~ I 3Go"b"11 Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association c/o Common Interest Management Services 315 Diablo Road, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 September 4, 2003 Myron & Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Animal Concern Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kashima: This letter is sent in response to your letters of August, 20, and September 3,2003 regarding an incident involving a dog from 8348 Creekside Drive. Please be advised, I will present your concerns to the Board of Directors at their next meeting for their review. Thank you in advance for your patience and cooperation. Sincerely" , ~ "." '-/-'.,/' ..,."~ . '11".1 _." ReÌ}ee Vlzza·/ ; I ~., Community ¥inager...",,/ By direction" Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association Phone 925-743·3080 Fax 925-743-3084 ~ï ~ 11 "- September 3, 2003 COMMON INTEREST MANAGEMENT SERVICES Attention: Mr. Dan Nelson, President 315 Diablo Road, Suite 221 Danville, .CA 94526 SUBJECT: Morgan & Nancy King 8348 Creekside Drive Silvergate Subdivision This letter is to notify you that on September 2,2003 at 4:00 AM, the King's dog broke through the fence again while I was with our dogs for their bathroom break. I had to yell out for someone :from the King's residence to come out to pull their dog away ftom the fence. These incidents are occurring more ftequently. The barking and pounding on the fence fÌ'Om their dog happen on a daily basis when their dog hears us outside. My wife is afraid that she will not be able to protect herself or our dogs should the King's dog gain access to our yard. We will continue to notify the Association of any future occurrences. Our only desire is for the King's to manage their dog's barking and take corrective measures to keep their dog inside their yard to allow us to enjoy our yard in peace and be able to feel safe in our own yard. Sincerely, / /7 L/ kl~ /(-/t;4",,{:¿;,( ¿ '- Myro~ and Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive Dublin, CA 94568 Cc: Alameda County Animal Control ~ ~ e -~ ~« ~ ì't ~ ~ V) ~q)11 September 3, 2003 Nancy & Morgan King 8348 Creekside Drive Dublin, CA 94568 This is in response to your letter dated 8/27/03 regarding your dog's repeated aggressive behavior. We are very disappointed that you have not acknowledged the problem. Let us repeat our complaint. Quite often your dog aggressively tries to attack us and our dogs and as a result the fence between us gets damaged. These attacks have become more frequent. We now cannot enjoy our own backyard in peace and quiet without being barked at or terrorized by your dog. Our dogs cannot run fi:ee in our yard without being threatened. We are extremely concerned for our family's and our dogs' safety, especially after the latest incident, which occurred on 9/2 at 4:00 AM, when your dog's head and shoulders were through the fence when your son had to come to pull the dog away. Your urgent attention to this matter is required so we can enjoy our pets and our backyard in a peaceful and safe manner. Myron and Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive Dublin, CA 94568 August 28, 2003 Sheriff Charles C. Plummer/Officer Bowman Alameda County Sheriff's Office Field Services 4595 Gleason Drive Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Sires) and/or Madam: SUBJECT: Dog Complaint Weare in receipt of your letter dated August 20, 2003 advising us of a complaint about our dog(s). Please note that I am attaching a letter that was sent to my neighbor BEHIND my property complaining about their dog's barking. You will also note that we keep our dogs INSIDE the house because of their dog(s)' barking and aggressive behavior. I am not sure who filed the complaint but if it's this same neighbor, I can only assume that they áre trying to displace where the actual noise is coming from. If it's from another neighbor, the sound carries and since these dogs are at our back fence, it's very possible that someone can assume that our dogs are causing the disturbance. There was also a notation that our dogs are allowed to run loose and I can assure you that AT NO TIME are they ever allowed outside of our property and unfortunately, because ofthe situation with our back neighbor, they do not even run free in their own backyard for any length of time. My dogs are supervised even when they are let out for their bathroom and exercise breaks before they are sent back into the house. We have also notified our Homeowners Association of this situation (note that this neighbor is on the Board of Directors). I would like to file a complaint for the noise disturbance caused by their dogs as well as for some assistance in getting their cooperation to contain their dogs away from the common fence to prevent them from breaking through. I trust that this information will satisrythe complaint against our animals. Please contact me at 925.556.9239 if you need more infonnation to file the complaint on my neighbor's dogs at 8348 Creekside Drive. We can certainly show Officer Bowman the areas where their dog(s) have broken through the fencing as well as what we have done on our part to curb this vèfy fÎ'iistrating situation. We would like to allow our dogs to enjoy our backyard but we are unable to at this time. Also note that I have mailed in the dog licensing for our dogs. -"- 40 ~1' l\10RGAN D. KING ATTOR.:;';EY &. COUXSELOR ~\. T LAW 7080 DO:";'LO:";' WA Y. SVITE 222 D"(7BLIX C'.A \14568 41 "t 1~ _T......_..........__'........--....____",,_ U2;;'·,B':2Y· C:;C8 F.....X !j~!-:- 'k'".h!,ï:!6:l E~L\.J j . ";ì¡.)r~~o1í.l~I!1~.\r¥"ar.bng_l..':~rn August 27, 2003 Pam Kashima 8335 Brittany Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Letter dated: August 20, 2003 Letter Postmarked: August 25, 2003 Mrs. Kashima, Our telephone conversation you refer to was the first I've had with you regarding the dogs. Your letter implies several things. First of all, I am NOT home all day, as your letter states. I come home several times a day between errands. My older son is most often home during the day. There have been many times when our dogs were in the house, and your larger dog is in the backyard continuously barking. I was informed of this by neighbors on your street, and uphill from us. I really appreciate what Myron has done with the fance. My son puts up barriers on our side as well. Presently, it is the smaller dog that barks aggresively through the fence, and {n turn, our dog does too. Your phone call sounded angry. I was trying to handle this in a friendly manner. You seem to be under the impression that your dogs wouldn't bark at all, if it weren't for our dogs.??? We chose this development due to the lot size. One reason was due to having two dogs. If we leave the house for most of the day, we leave our dogs in the house. If someone is home, they are allowed to go outside. Page(2) Kashima continued 4 ¡. 1b" Your last paragraph states "we MUST take action to control our dogs". I am shocked at this wording, considering this is the FIRST communication from you on this issue. I will comment then, you MUST take action NOT to leave your dogs alone, in your backyard, while no one is'home. Morgan King 8348 Creeks rive Dublin, CA cc: Myron Kashima encl. y...3~ " August 20, 2003 Mrs. Nancy King 8348 Creekside Drive Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Nancy: TIùs letter is a follow up to our latest incident on Friday where your dog(s) have once again broken through our fence. We have had several conversations with you regarding your dogs barking and aggressive attacks to the fence that we both share between our properties. We have added additional reinforcing on our side of the fence but your dogs continue to break through. As good neighbors, we have done everytlùng that we can possibly do to prevent our own dogs barking or having access to the fence. As you remember, after a previous incident of them coming through the fence, we've had Morgan and your son over to see how we've put up an extra barrier fencing around our entire back and side perimeter of our property. Our dog wears a bark collar and we have a separate ultrasonic bark control unit located on our side of the fence to further reduce our dogs barking. However, when your dogs are constantly pounding on the back fence or actually come through, it causes our dogs to bark to protect their territory. Because we are never sure when your dogs will break through, we have kept our dogs in the house since the begiìming ofthe year. You are home during the day and you know very well that our dogs are not out all day. We work nearby and come home every few hours and then put them back in the house. They are supervised during this time because of incidents like Friday when I had to call you to tell you that your dog had once again come through the fence while I was home. I fmd it extremely unfair that our dogs are restrained and your dogs are allowed to run ftee and bark continuously. You MUST take action to control your dogs barking and aggressive behavior so we can allow our dogs to play and exercise in the yard without us worrying if they will be safe fÌ"om your dogs! Sincerely, ~ ~ Cc: Silvergate Homeowners Assn. LtY- Þb ,., August 20, 2003 COMMON INTEREST MANAGEMENT SERVICES Attention: Mr. Dan Nelson, President 315 Diablo'Road, Suite 221 Danville, CA 94526 SUBJECT: Morgan & Nancy King Silvergate Subdivision Attached are copies of correspondence sent to the King's as well as to the Alameda County Sheriff's office regarding excessive barking and aggressive behavior ftom their dog(s). Excessive barking is a problem, but the more serious matter is the possibility that their dog will enter our yard and cause physical injury to us or to our dogs. The letter to the King~s refer to an incident of their dog breaking through the fence on August 15. It is because of this situation that we supervise our dogs as they are out to exercise or for their bathroom breaks. We do not feel safe in our own backyard. We are extremely concerned for our safety as well as for our dogs well being. We are asking for assistance from the Homeowner's Association to address this very serious situation. Copies of our complaint have also been sent to the Animal Control Department at the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. Please contact us at 925-556-9239 and let us know how the Association will be handling tlús matter. We would appreciate copies of any letters forwarded to the King's for our records. Sincerely yours, flÍ¡/f(~~~/t£/¿ é Myron and Pam Kashima . 8335 Brittany Drive Dublin, CA 94568 : ; : L. \. ~ '.. , \ ~ !:~;·.lr~·. .t".~~1"~c.rJ·C;.·~(·~ ()(f~i...'<' Lf5~ 14 FIELD SER\·ICES. 4545 (;LE.\SO:--: DRIH:. Dl"BU:--:. C\ 94.'i(¡X (925) ¡':O-,~7()"¡O · F·\X (92.'» HO.;-7044 . : ¡ i \i·:/.1 .~; ['!: \! \11. I,. -,¡ Ii HI! I· ~L"\R..SfL\L - CORmiER· PCBLlC AmUXISTRATOR DIRECTOR OF ÐIERGESCr SER\ lCES August 20, 2003 To the Residents of 8335 Brittany Dr. Dublin, CA 94568 We have received a complaint from a neighbor that your dog's barking has been causing a noise disturbance and running loose at night. Alameda County Ordinance 5.08.060, Animals - Noise Disturbances by, states it is illegal to permit any dog or other animal, by barking or any other noise or sound, to disturb any person's peace and quiet. For your information, a copy of the Alameda County Animal Control Barking Dog Complaint Process sheet and a packet entitled "Hints to Help Break the Barking Habit" are enclosed. A check of our dog license files indicates you do not have a current license for your dog. Enclosed are a dog license application and a licensing information pamphlet. YOU HAVE TWO WEEKS TO COMPLY WITH LICENSING. No action will be taken at this time; this is a WARNING NOTICE. Please contact me at your earliest convenience. If you have any questions, please call Animal Control Officer Bowman (925) 803-7882. Charles C. Plummer Sheriff ¡$~ B. Bowman Animal Control Officer Department of Field Services Enclosures Barking DogÜr. doc Reconsideration of finding Amy CU~~r:!~hamM'" ~___.._ From: Morgan D. King [morgan@morganking.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 20049:03 PM To: amy.cunningham@ci.dublin.ca.us Subject: Reconsideration of finding ~~.., ~'-' .. '~ Ms. Cunningham - please see attached. - Morgan King 8/12/2004 Page 1 of 1 4("~ ;~ A 1'1' ACHMENT 2 ( W.1 "D 1'1 Amy Cunningham Hearing Officer City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Vicious Dog Hearing August 11,20023:00 p.m. Request for reconsideration Dear Ms. The purpose ofthis letter is to request that the "finding" made at the meeting of August 11,2004, that the dog owned by myself, namely "Saake," is a "vicious" dog within the meaning of Dublin Municipal Code § 5.36.290 and constitutes a "public nuisance," be re- . considered. We feel this finding was rlot supported by the evidence, and in any event, given the context in which the problem arose, is not a reasonable finding. There is no reason why Saake should be deemed any more "vicious" or more of a "public nuisance" than the . complainants' boxer. The evidence based on the testimony of both witnesses does not establish on whose property the alleged attack took place. While there is evidence that Saake's "snout" had poked through an opening in the fence caused by her knocking down a board, the testimony clearly establishes that the boxer's face was close enough to Saake's to be able to experience a bite from Saake. This establishes that both dogs were in mutual combat, both eager to get at each other, and both capable of pushing their respective snouts through the opening. Neither witness saw Saake actually biting the boxer. There is no evidence as to where the dogs' respective snouts were at the time of the alleged bite. Accordingly, it is just as likely that the boxer's snout was on our side of the property when the contact was made, in which case the boxer is the vicious dog, not Saake. Saake, as well, was bitten on the nose. However, not seeking to make a mountain out of a molehill, we did not see the need for veterinarian attention. Furthermore, Municipal. C. § 5.36.290(A)(3), which defines a vicious dog as one that "attacks" another animal on "property other than that of the owner of the attacking dog," is vague as to what exactly constitutes being on "property other than" that of the owner of the dog. 1 ( 4~~1'1 The events as described by the two witnesses confirm that Saake, in fact, was on our property, as all four of her feet were on our side of the fence. If our dog'sfeet were all on our property, can it reasonably be said that she was on their property? Under the circumstances, to find that this was an "attack" that occurred on the complainants' property is really stretching things to a point of unreasonable interpretati on. As should have been clear from the evidence, the only reason our dog, instead of their dog, knocked a board out of the fence is that a board can only be knocked out from our side; since the boards are nailed to the posts on the complainants' side, it is impossible for the boxer to knock down a board. Thus, it is by only mere circumstance that our dog is made to appear the aggressor, due to the construction of the fence. In other words, the only basis for finding that our dog is "vicious" but not their dog, is based on the purely bad luck that our dog can push a board into their yard, while their dog cannot. This is solely due to the original construction of the fence. It is quite obvious that were their dog capable of knocking a board out, he would have done so. In my opinion statutes should be interpreted reasonably to achieve the purposes for which the statute was drafted. I do not believe that the statute was drafted to result in this kind ,of a finding. ' . ; Doug, who resides with us, has been walking Saake twice a day around theiblock for two· years" on a leash. There has never been a complaint that Saake appeared vicious to anyone, nor has there been a single instance of Saake engaging in combat while on one of these walks. Saake is playful and affectionate with all children, and we frequently have young children on the premises, both in the house and outside. Saake has never bitten or even snapped at any adult, and we frequently have guests in the house for a wide variety of reasons. We can provide references to this fact. Saake's veterinarian does not see any evidence that Saakeis vicious or dangerous. The vet is even able to insert an anal thermometer in Saake, and she simply stays still and accepts it, unlike many dogs who snarl and growl when their dignity is thusly attacked. In other words, it should be obvious that Saake is no more deserving of being labeled "vicious" than any other family dog. We are concerned that having been declared "vicious" on the city records, if any incident may occur in the future the authorities will not fairly take the actual circumstances into consideration, but simply point to the fact that Saake was found to be "vicious." In fact, Saake is in no way a vicious dog. Furthermore, it seems the complainants are culpable in creating a situation where our dog could be "framed" in this way. The most reasonable steps both parties could take, replace 2 the fence and split the expense, was rejected by the complainants. So we, as the ones proposing a reasonable precaution, have been left open to this kind of unfair situation. And, it seems the complainants did not act in good faith by apparently sending off volumes ofletters to the homeowners' association, the city, and the county, complaining about the holes in the fence, without admitting that they were the ones who refused to share the expense of replacing the fence. Not only did they not include all the facts in their letters, they never copied the letters to us. So, we never had an opportunity to respond. CONDITIONS Wholly aside from the unfair and unsubstantiated finding that our dog is "vicious," is the issue of conditions or restrictions placed on us as the owners. We do not want our homeowners' insurance policy made;; available to the complainants. They have demonstrated that they are not reasonable people, but appear determined to be "victims." We suspect that if they obtain the information about the policy, that they will mail unfounded and ridiculous claims and allegations to the insurer, which will probably result in the policy being canceled; the insurance company does not need any reasonable basis to cancel a policy, but may do so at the first suggestion that they may have to actually pay on a claim. REFERENCES The following are individuals who have been guests in our home, as well as many of their children, and who can corroborate that Saake is anything but "vicious," but is rather a sweet and playful dog. Ted and Kerri Niday . lrl,,"Creekside Dr. Dublinq~' "-" , Todd and Leslie Forsythe .. Creekside Dr.Dublin~ Bob and Colleen Petersen ~Galway Court Dublin~ Larry and Lisa Barbier ....Creekside Dr. Dubli~ Dave and Pam Crowfoot _Brittany Drive Dublin~ Mike and Mickey Fisher ~reekside Dr. Dublin -. 3 Li'9 '61"7 6C>CC 1 , Ron and Barbara Bissinger '~Æataro Court Pleasanton ..... ~.,..'. Dean and Naomi Franco Franco Ranch, Highway 84, Livermore '" - .~ -n ~.~ie Bachmann ~l Capitan Danville -. Scott Haggerty & daughter Haley ~o. H st. Livermore ..... Dave Bewley. ..... . ~Brittany Lane Dubli~' Richard King ....E..La.spa.lma.sCourt '~" ...... '. Frem~.. .r.'1_t,(w)~' Cell '. ,.' I 4 KASlllMA: 8335 Brittany Dr. Dublin KING: 8348 Creekside Drive Dublin First Letter: AUGUST 20, 2003 from the KASHIMA RESIDENCE TIllS IS SAME DATE AS A LETTER TO MR. & MRS. KASHIMA FROM ANIMAL CONlROL , REGARDING TIlEIR DOGS. BEFORE TIllS DATE OF AUGUST 20, 2003, TIlE KASHIMA'S NEVER EXPRESSED ANY URGENCY/FEAR, AS STATED IN THESE LETTERS. WE ARE NEVER COPIED ANY LETTERS MR. & MRS. KASmMA MAIL TO OTIlERS REGARDING THIS ISSUE. WE HA VB MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO COMMUNICATE WITH MR & MRS. KASIDMA, WITH NO RESPONSE. G1"b1cr ..,' .. , ............dt:~ , I'· .~ :......:...:~ .' .:.., n" . . ... ~ ,- . . .' . . : '. .,'. :.,: :',. .... : '" '+..~. ..I " .,.. + ,_. . ' ~ . . " . ':'.:;;".\ :. ..: :··:.(c i ":'~< '·:'·t';;;>/·, ;A( .., .' . '.','. &" . .... . .+ 1_' -----~-ro11' ... .... . .. . .... . "1" . . ' . '. .. " -'\":1' .::; ":'\':"'''''''..-;:, ( . ';..;.\\';~ .. . . . , õ. . '.' ~...:- '.. . . , . . . SILVERGATE HIGHLÂNDS ASSOCIATION' . elo Homeowner Association Services 2400 Old Crow Cinyon Road; Sul.e A3 Son Rnmoß,'CA 94583 925..362-4848 . August 17 , 2001 Mr. & Mrs..Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive . Dublin, ÇA 94568 ..' :. Re: Barking Dog Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kashima: The Silvergate Highlands Association Bo~d of Directors' has received a complaint indicating that your dogs are barking and disturbing neighbors. This is occurring 'during the day when you are at work. We need your assistance to correct this situation so your neighbors are not constantly disturbed by this nuisance. Article IV. Section 4.3 of the Silvergate Highlands Association CC&Rs addresses the topic of pets. While this section does not specifically mention "barking dogs" it does say that. "The Board shall soecifical/v have the rif!ht to vrohibit the mail1lenance of any Del which. after Notice andHearil7fJ. is found 10 be a nuisance to other Owners. If The obvious point her is that your community CC&Rs are serious about homeowners not letting their pets disturb other residents. We appreciate your attention to this matter and anticipate that you will not let your dog bark continually or cause any other disturbance with your neighbors. Sincerely yours. S'l~1,IS7¿tJ,ns 't4'1(j';f.MWS -æ()rI~ ()9 '[)97¿S(!7ð;¿S .. n ..._____.___, ___~. _n ''''..~____~._''~.'.__''.''''~____.'..,H____ .-.----.---------..".- ... ¡ ~.,. ..' ' .. . " .., ,', ," ., .'.,' "'. (t~. f( .,;...::J ,':. . '.' "'. ..... . . .. :.\'1 ..... . . " . . . 0. . . , '." .~ ;:4. '!~ - :.. .'~'.." .,.{t~ ,... ,'.". ..... .?? % ~.q ,..... ',",;",:" I:. . ..... . ".,f ':"'. ", .>,:' <:. .,'1". ..I..~~t . , . :.~ t' ~'..~./ . " , . . . ,,'.~., .,J1 . . September 7, 200 I SILVEROATB JlIOHLANDS ASSOCIATION' % Homeowner Association Services 2400 Old Crow Canyon Road, Suite A3 San Rmnon, CA94583 Attention: Board of Directors SUBJECT: Barking Dogs Dear SirlMadam: This is in response to your August 17 Jetter regarding our barking dogs. Our flrSt·concern is to veruy that the neighbor(s) that complained are certain that the noise is coming only or mainly «om our dogs. Since there are at least six dogs in the near vicinity, we don't know if they have mistakenly assumed the sound is coming ftom our property. As you know, noise carries and we believe that it is often difficult to detennine which dogs are barking. We have checked with a few neighbors and although our dogs are barking some of the time, they've said that other dogs are a problem too. We do however, reaJize that our dogs are barking at least part ofthe time. We have tried several bark deterrent systems and we feel that we have fmally found the one that works for our dog. We have monitored him since the Labor Day weekend and his barking is now completely controlled. We have also started keeping the little dog in the house so if she's barking. it won't be heard at all. We will continue to monitor the noise level with the neighbors to ensure that this is no longer an issue. Please note that since we have taken corrective action., any future complaints about our dogs will need to be verified to confirm that the noise is coming from our property as I believe there are several other dogs in the immediate area that are contributing to this problem. Sincerely, ~JSt4.~ ~Qm~la S~Knshima 8335 Brittany Drive Dublin. CA 94568 ~', ' Sep'03 03 04:38p ,,-;, r( 825.-47...9 '1368 (I August 28, 2003 ShcriffCharlC1l C. Plummer/Omcer Bowman Alameda County Sherin'¡ Office Field Services 4595 Glcuson Drive Dublin. CA 94568 Dear Sires) and'or Madam: SUBJECT: Dog Compluint We fire in receipt (lryour leller dated August 20. 2003 ¡dvi~ing liS ora compl.aint 4bout our do~,,'(s). Please notc that 1 am aUaching iI letter thai was scnt to my neighhor REI-UNO my propCrly compl<lining <lbouttheir dog's barking. Y Oll will also note thul we keep our dogs JNSIDE the house bec,¡lusc of their do!:.'s)' barking :md aggressive hdlavior. J am not sure who filed the complaint but if irs this sam~ neighhor. I call1lnly a~:;umc that they arc trying to displace where the actual noi:>e Î:> coming from. J/ïl's from :mother neighbor. the sOllnd carries and since these dog... arc tit our huck f~lIœ. j·l·s vçry Pl,ssib/e thut someone can asslIme that our dogs are causing the disturbance. . Th(,.,"I'c w~ ¡¡Iso it nOl;ltion thill Ollr do~ arc allow(,.,-J (0 run loose:md I ~m assure you that AT NO TIM F. ¡LTC they ever alklwed ouL~ide (II" our properly and unI"Or1unatcly. because ofthc sitúation with our b<lck neighbllr. t}wy do not even run I"rl.:e in their own baekY:lrd lor any length oftirne. My dogs arc supervis(,.,"( even whcn (hey an: tét out for their b:lthroolll nnd exercise hreakN hef(lre thl.J' arc sent back into the house. We have nlso notified our Ilorneowncrs Associati0n 111'this situatil)n (note that (his ncighb(!r is on the Board of'Directors). J would likc to lilc a complaint for the noisç disturo¡mce cifu~H.:d by Iheir dogs :IS well as for some assistuncc in getling their cooperation 10 eonlain their do&~ UW<lY from the common fence to prevent them from brenking through. I trust lh3t this information will satÎsfy the compl;¡int :lg:linst our animals. Plca...e conlnct me l1t 925.556.9239 ¡ryoll need more inrormalion to lile (he complaint 011 lilY Tleighbor·s dogs at S34S Creekside Driw. We can certainly show Onïœr BowlIlan the areas where thçìr dog(s) have broken through the fencing as well as wh;\t wc havc llonc On ('llr pilrtl(! curb this vCr)' Irústmting sÌluation. We would like 10 ¡¡lIow (Jur d(!g.~ It) enjoy our backyard but we :lru unablu to Ullhis time. Also note thaI I have mailed in the dog licensing I(¡r our dl)p,.~. ;. ~ Pam~¡l~him:1 8335 Brittany Drive Dublin, CA 94568 p.4 ?4- ÞD 11 ,« MORGAN D. KING ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW 7080 DONLON WAY. SUITE 222 DUBLIN. CA 94568 1125.829.6363 FAX, 925·829-7262 EMAIL.rnorgan@morganking.com February 2, 2004 Mr. and Mrs. .~ashima 8335 Brittan~ Drive Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Fence/Dogs Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kashima, This letter is to reiterate the conversation with you the first week of November 2003. After speaking with officer Bowman/Alameda County Sheriff's Dept., we came to the conclusion that the best solution is a new, stronger fence between our yards. Our shared fence is older than our side fences. Our shared fence was constructed the fall of 1989/Winter 1990. This fence should be replaced within the next six months. Very truly ,yours, C"/ 'ù I ,// ~ <' -"--- ,', f , J '" ~,y"-'--~~ r· , or ad and- in~.· )'7 cc: HOA Management Officer Bowman/Alameda Co. Sheriff Dept. 550-0'1 ) Morgan & Nancy King 8348 Cr9økSide Dnw DublIn. CA 94588 -I t;7J> ~ ,., July 21, 2004 ~ Mr. and Mrs. Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive lid J'r- Dublin, CA 94568 1~~1 Re: Common Fence/Dogs et al. Mr. and Mrs. Kashima, I am enclosing copies of letters mailed to you from 2/2/04, and 11/10/03. Also, I found two(2) letters in my HOA file regarding a complaint about your dogs in August 2001. Please be advised this complaint was NOT from us. I also want to clarify that we did NOT complain to anyone about your dog(s)? running loose. rIve only heard the:re was a complaint of this sort, at some time in the past. We cannot see the front of your house, so it would be difficult to know if your dog(s) were loose. We did ~OT make this complaint. Our dog was also injured in the altercation at the COŒmon fence. She had a cut on her nose area, we were told to wash it, and keep an eye on it. I assume your dog(s) shots are current. cc:encl E?1ffb11 August 5, 2004 Mr. and Mrs. Kashima 8335 Brittany Drive Dublin, CA 94568 Re: Common Fence: 8335 Brittany Drive 8348 Creekside Drive Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kashima, We have not received any communication/correspondence regarding the above, since Morgan called last November 2003. We have mailed three(3) letters to you since that time, without any acknowledgment regarding receipt of those letters. The letter from Mrs. Kashima, dated August 20, 2003. is the only communication received. Since that time, the HOA and Alameda Co. have received letter after letter, without any copied to us. The HOA does not usually get involved in issues between members and backyard shared fences. The HOA encourages members to communicate with each other, and make every effort to resolve any dispute, before requesting assistance. You never invited us to discuss this together, or make any attempts to meet with us in person. Be advised that a portion of the shared fence with our above neighbors, collapsed, during a winter stonn last January. This fence is four (4) years "newer", than the fence we share. We replaced this immediately. This new fence is much better quality, than what the developer provided. The wood is stronger, and nails do not seem to just be on "one" side of the fence. The boards cannot be pushed in from either side. As Morgan told you in November, we made inquiries into adding a row of boards on our fence side. We were advised the current fence "posts" are not strong enough to hold this kind of weight up for long. This fence is in "poor" condition. We have provided you with a copy of the estimate obtained last October 30, 2003 to replace this fence. I was very surprised to see a letter from you, dated January 7, 2004 to the HOA. In this letter, you are upset at the lack of result. There is no mention of Morgan's phone call to Myron just sixty (60) days earlier, or the fence estimate we obtained! Why would you exclude this information? I provided the HOA and Alameda Co. a copy of this estimate, and our letter to you. ;~~1'" In the meantime, heavy-gauge chicken wire was stapled to the existing fence. This covers the height and length of our side of the fence. Have you installed the same against your fence? The small wire/net I remember in your yard, apparently is not sufficient to keep your dogs from the fence. Our dogs have had obedience training, and are wonderful with friends of my children. When the children want to play outside, the dogs want out with them. We have lived here since November 1993. I believe you moved in approx. 1997. I felt we knew Myron casually from gardening talks over the fence. It was always pleasant. We don't know Pam Kashima. Mrs. Kashima has never spoken to us, unless one of us left a phone message for Myron. I am very surprised by the barrage ofletters to everyone, except us. I would expect a courtesy copy of a letter, just to let us know how you feel. Nothing was forwarded to us from you. //'; cc :Á/û/l1eda Co.ú/re(/PI- J Cf 1'1 rY!Oí-r J ,,)D I) ¥:... .... 'j' \ .. :, \ " ,. ,"'" , ~'.' . ".~ ¡ft". " ""' 'j" '" ~ ..; ..... .' ~ II; ,;. ,""l. f \ \ \ .. .~ \.~~ "'\.. , , ... 1.:1.'" ..... ..: /'~";~ ... ':"''' ~, ..' ;. '. " .... Þt· ,;.' .i~.' '.",-' ,,~..""'^"'-'~""""""" ~ 1f\~ ( ',~'" .' .':,. . ,JIi1 '~...' .... '..3 r ~" ; ,~'t, .:" ~' '; <.: :::,il\'1 " "l «)4 " ~' ...<8.",., .~. ' ..,. ,wit '. ):'" ..... .It .,J ~ ~. , 'f'...: ',,'- ';:.Af=.. ", 'if" '. ~r ",,1ft.' ..." ' ~'¡ ;,;" I.", ..:"'" '7' " ~ GDb 11 MINUTES VICIOUS DOG HEARING Dog: Saake Owner: Morgan King Victim: Makaha Date of Incident: 7/14/04 Date of Hearing: 8/11/04 Present: Amy Cunningham, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin Deena Hambleton, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin George Potstada, 4595 Gleason Drive, Dublin Myron Kashima, 8335 Brittany Dr., Dublin Pam Kashima, 8335 Brittany Dr., Dublin Crystal Kashima, 8335 Brittany Dr., Dublin Kim Castillo, 10 Woodranch Cr., Danville James Castillo, 10 Woodranch Cr., Danville Morgan King, 8348 Creekside Dr., Dublin Nancy King, 8348 Creekside Dr., Dublin Doug Morrison, 8348 Creekside Dr., Dublin Amy Cunningham opened the hearing by explaining the rules of conduct and procedures for this hearing. She then summarized the report presented by Animal Control (detail #212), and asked those present ifthey had any additional information to present. It was noted that this is the first incident for this dog, and that the license and rabies vaccination are current. It was also noted that "Saake" was home quarantined. Mr. King agreed with the description of his dog. Mr. King questioned the date of the incident. He thought that the incident occurred on the 19th of July, not the 14th. Ms. Cunningham and Animal Control Officer Potstada confirmed that the correct date was July 14, 2004. Mr. King referred to the fence, saying that all of the boards are nailed on the Kashima's side of the fence. Officer Potstada stated that he did not believe that was correct. Mrs. King presented photos of the fences in her yard for file. She stated that the photos show that part of the fencing is new, and the part of the fence that they share with the Kashima's has had heavy duty wire installed on their side of the property line in order to prevent their dog from knocking down any more fence boards. Mrs. King also stated that before the wire was installed, the loose - and/or broken fence boards were replaced. Mr. King stated that "Saake" and "Makaha" are two dogs that don't like each other. Mr. King also stated that because of the fence construction, it is possible for "Saake" to push through the fence boards on the Kashima property, but it is not possible for "Makaha" to push the boards onto the King property. A TTACIIMENT 3 f.p1ð~11 Mr. King said that the portion of the backyard fence he shares with the Kashimas is the back fence. He then said he agreed with the description of the fences contained in the Animal Control report. Mr. Kashima said that he also agreed with the fence description contained in the report. Ms. Cunningham asked Doug Morrison, Mrs. King's son, what happened on the day of the dog attack. Mr. Morrison stated that he was inside the house, heard both dogs barking, and ran outside when he heard "all of the commotion." He said that he grabbed "Saake's" body and pulled her back through the fence to his yard. He said that one fence bOtU'd was knocked down. Crystal Kashima, daughter of Pam and Myron Kashima, said that when she ran out to her backyard, she saw "Saake's" muzzle poking through the fence. She said that she grabbed her dog- and pulled it away from the fence. Mr. Kashima said that everyone has the right to own a dog, and that you can never guarantee that a fence board won't fall down. He also said that he has built a second fence barrier in his yard, set back from the original fence. Mr. King said that ifthere was a second barrier built, how was "Makaha" able to be close to his dog? Mr. Kashima ignored that question, and stated that "Saake's" behavior is the problem. Mrs. King stated that they have made several attempts to contact the Kashimas about sharing the cost of a new fence, bùt they have had no response. Mrs. King presented copies of correspondence for file, along with copies of photos of her daughter with "Saake." Mr. Kashima stated that a new fence would not change "Saake's" behavior. Mr. Kashima asked if the City of Dublin could order the two families to build a new fence. Ms. Cunningham said that the fence issue is a civil matter, but that she does have the authority to order better containment of dogs in their backyards, such as a kennel. Each time Mr. or Mrs. King tried to speak, Mr. Kashima said that he did not agree. Mr. Kashima repeatedly asked who was running the meeting. Several times, Ms. Cunningham responded that she was in charge, and that if the current type of exchange between the parties continued, all comments would be directed to her. The two neighboring families continued to argue, and Ms. Cunningham had to restore order in the room several times. Ms. Cunningham gave mediation pamphlets to the Kings and the Kashimas. Mr. Kashima left his pamphlet behind. It was mailed to him later that afternoon. Mr. King asked about the restrictions that could be placed on a dog. Ms. Cunningham eXplained that the incident usually dictates the restrictions, and that she has the authority to place restrictions that can range from obeying the leash law to euthanization. Mr. King asked about the City's appeal process. Ms. Cunningham said that the appeal is to the City Council and involved parties would receive the information with the hearing findings. Mr. Morrison said that the term "vicious" is excessive. Ms. Cunningham LP1"b 11 explained that the hearing process and terms used are decided by City Council. Mr. Morrison again said that the term "vicious" is excessive, and that "Saake" is not a vicious dog. He said that this dog plays with his younger brother and sister, and all of their friends, and that there has never been a problem with her behavior. Mr. King stated that there were no witnesses to this dog on dog attack. Ms. Cunningham said it seems reasonable that the attack occurred on Mr. Kashima's property, given the fence configuration, from reading the Animal Control report, and hearing testimony given by Doug Morrison and Crystal Kashima. Mr. Kashima began to read aloud Alameda County vicious dog information he obtained from the internet. Officer Potstada reminded him that City of Dublin's rules supercede Alameda County's rules in the City of Dublin. Animal Control Officer Potstada said that he wanted to say something for the Kings and Kashimas to think about. He stated that it is important to know that not all dogs are aggressive toward people. Some dogs are very good with people, but are very aggressive toward other dogs. He said that some dogs have yard aggression, while others have kennel aggression. He stated that Akitas and Boxers are both very aggressive and territorial breeds of dogs. Mr. Kashima seemed surprised to hear that Boxers are aggressive. He said that he has a right to have a dog, and got his dog because there was a break-in at his residence, and he wanted some protection. Ms. Cunningham asked about the gates at the King residence. Mr. Morrison stated that the gate to the backyard has a latch, and that there are also a cinder block brick at the base of the gate that the family uses to keep the gate closed. He said the whole family makes sure that the gate is latched and the brick is in place at all times. Ms. Cunningham asked if "Saake" has had any formal obedience training. Mrs. King stated that "Saake" completed obedience training with the breeder before they bought her. Ms. Cunningham asked if "Saake" is an outside or inside dog. Mr. Morrison said that the dog is both inside and outside. Mrs. King said that "Saake" was inside during this hearing. Ms. Cunningham asked if there is a screen door at the King residence. Mt. Morrison said that there is no screen door. Ms. Cunningham asked him how "Saake" behaves when someone comes to the front door. Mr. Morrison said that "Saake" stays back, and would probably only run out the front door if she saw a cat. Ms. Cunningham asked if "Saake" is taken for walks. Mr. Morrison said that he walks both of the family dogs, one at a time, on fixed 6 foot leashes. He explained that each dog has its own leash. He also said that he walks them at least twice a day. Ms. King said that neighbors have commented on how often their dogs are walked, and Mr. King said that their veterinarian said that both of their dogs are very fit. Mr. Kashima said that he wanted reimbursement for "Makaha's" veterinary bills. Ms. Cunningham told him that the veterinary bills were a civil matter, and that they would ~&~ " need to discuss that issue with each other. Ms. King said that "Saake" had a scratch on her nose as a result of the incident, but was not taken to the veterinarian. Ms. Cunningham declared the dog to be vicious according to the City of Dublin Mun. Code 5.36.290 (A) (3), and while she would not be making final determination regarding restrictions at this hearing, she would recommend that: The owner shall take adequate precautions to ensure that the dog is only out of the fenced backyard or residence when on a 6 foot leash, and under the direct control of an adult. The owner will provide proof of obedience school completion for "Saake" within 30 days of issuance of findings. The owner will provide proof of homeowner's insurance showing personal liability protection that covers dog bites or attacks within 30 days of issuance of findings. Amy Cunningham and Animal Control Officer Potstada will perform an inspection of the fences and gates at the King residence. Upon completion of the inspection, Ms. Cunningham will make her final determination, and will inform all parties involved. Ms. Cunningham closed the meeting. Respectfully, \~ µ.a¿4J,h~ Deena Hambleton, Secretary Note: On 08/12/04, at 4:00 pm, a fence inspection at the King property was done. Animal Control Officer Potstada determined that the additional wire fencing that was voluntarily installed immediately after this incident was adequate to contain the dog on the property. The fence posts were sturdy enough to support the structure. A gate latch and a brick at the base of the gate were adequate to keep the side gate secure, and prevent the dog from escaping from the back yard. Note: On 08/18104, at 8:00 am, a fence inspection was done at the Kashima residence. Ms. Cunningham reported that the secondary fence installed by the Kashimas is about 3 feet high and is set back from the primary/common fence approximately 18"-24". Ms. Cunningham determined that the Kashima dog is prevented from approaching the primary fence by this secondary fence. "Makaha's" body would be stopped at the small, but sturdy, secondary fence preventing anything but his head from extending in the direction of the primary fence. Further, due to the construction of the common fence, it was confirmed that the boards could only be displaced from the King's side of the property. ~q 'b 1., There was no secondary barrier that prevented the King dog from directly approaching the common/primary fence. If both dogs are near the· fence line when a board is displaced, the Kashima dog physically would not be able to extend himself onto the King property because of the secondary fence. However, as no secondary barrier was in existence on the King property, the King dog would be able to extend her head onto the Kashima property. Note: Ms. Cunningham spoke with City Attorney John Bakker, and e-mailed the findings to him. He made some revisions and.returned them to her. Note: On August 25,2004, Ms. Cunningham consulted with City Manager Rich Ambrose regarding proposed hearing findings and restrictions. Note: On August 26,2004, after additional consultation with City Attorney John Bakker, it was determined that because "Makaha" was physically constrained from entering the King property, substantial evidence exists to support the conclusion that "Saake" attacked "Makaha" on the Kashima property. Ms. Cunningham determined that "Saake" technically fits the description of a vicious dog as defined in DMC 5.36.290 (A)(3). The restrictions imposed at the August 11,2004 Vicious Dog Hearing were amended as follows: The owner shall ensure that "Saake" is only out ofthe fenced backyard or residence when on a 6 foot leash and under the direct control of a competent adult. The owner shall ensure that the heavy wire fencing voluntarily installed in their side of the primary/common fence subsequent to this incident is maintained in a manner sufficient to contain "Saake" within the fenced yard. The Findings were mailed the morning of August 27,2004. lV ~ 11 VICIOUS DOG HEARING SIGN IN SHEET Owner: Morgan King Dog: Saake Date of Incident: 7/14/04 Date of Hearing: 8/11//04 Time: 3:00 p.m. PLEASE SIGN IN BELOW Please Print Your Name Please Sign Your Name Address IJø.£6E í?-n;r-4D4 I. Vv-6ü;,../ CITY OJ- DUBLIN 11ffb11 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website:http://www.cLdublin.ca.us " DATE: August 26, 2004 Morgan King 8348 Creekside Drive Dublin, CA 94568 RE: Transmittal of Vicious dog Hearing Findings Dear Mr. King: CERTIFIED MAIL: 70020510000222526493 On August 11,2004, the City of Dublin conducted a vicious dog hearing in accordance with the Municipal Code and the notice previously mailed to you. En~losed are the .. Vicious Dog Hearing Findings involving your dog. :. Please note that certain restrictions have been placed on your dog. You should take all steps to ensure that you comply with these restrictions. Failure to comply with these restrictions will constitute a misdemeanor (Mun. Code Section 1.04.030). By refusing to cooperate, the owner is subject to criminal penalties, including imprisonment in the County Jail for up to six months, or a: fine up to $1,000, or both. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact this office. Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. to SinC~I~y" '0"" {þ/ ~.{'1'-?·/·¡Jl"',1 ..'7_.;1,(;'.... 1:;Ø1~, il'/l; p'/¡I·'~·"'''' , r " '1/ /' Amy êunningham . . Administrative Analyst .. cc: Tony Owens, Department ofField Services, Alameda County Animal Control Myron, Pam & Crystal Kashima Kim & James Castillo . Nancy King Doug Morrison. "'~"..? ">.,. ,,\.1' Area Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650 . City Coun?iI 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 . Economic Development 833~6650 Finaí)~~ß33,:.fß40 . Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 . Parks & Community Services 833~6645 ' Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833·6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Printed on Recycled Paper ATTACHMENT 4 , CITY O~ DUBLIN 141-=). 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www.cLdublin.ca.us FINDINGS AND ORDER VICIOUS DOG HEARING Dog: "Saake" Owner: Morgan King Date of Incident: 7/14/04 Date of Hearing: 8/11/04 . WHEREAS, a hearing in accordance with Dublin Municipal Code (DMC) Section 5.36 was conducted on August 11,2004; and WHEREAS, the Owner of the dog was present at the hearing; and WHEREAS, in accordance with DMC Section 5.36.290 (A) (3), a dog may be presumed vicious when among other things "An attack on another animal, livestock, or poultry . . occurs on property other than that of the owner of the attacking dog"; and WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, an incident took place involving "Makaha,".a dog owned by the Kashima family and "Saake", a dog owned by Morgan King;·and WHEREAS, the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing indicated that at the beginning of the incident both dogs were in the respective back yards oftheÌr families, and, due to a broken fence separating the two backyards, the dogs were able to physically engage one another in combat; and WHEREAS, the evidence presented at the hearing indicated that "Makaha" received . puncture wounds to his mouth that could only have been inflicted by another dog; and WHEREAS, the key issue under DMC section 5.36.290(A)(3) is whether either dog engaged in an "attack" on property not owned by the dog's owner; and WHEREAS, on August 12, 2004, a fence inspection at the King property was performed; and WHEREAS, consistent with the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, it was determined that ( a) prior to the incident a standard wooden fence separated the two properties; (b) at the particular location on the fence where it was broken the board could onJy be displaced by a dog from the King's property, and (c) that upon the fence breaking nothing prevented "Saake" from extending a portion of her body, including her head, onto the Kashima property; and Area Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833·6605 . Economic Development 833-6650 Finance 83~1-6640 . Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 . Parks & Community Services 833-6645 . Police 833-6670 Planning/Code Enforcement 833-6610 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606 Printed on Recycled Paper Î';'~ 11 WHEREAS, subsequent to the incident, thè King family added heavy wire fencing to their side of the fence that Alameda County Animal Control detennined was adequate to contain "Saake" in her yard; and' - WHEREAS, on August .18, 2004, a fence inspection at the Kashima property was perfonned, and it was observed that "Makaha" is prevented from getting close to the primary/common fence by an approximately 3-foot high secondary- fence; which is set back fÌ'om the property line approximately 18"-24"; and WHEREAS, during the incident, "Makaha's" body would have been stopped at the small but sturdy, secondary fence preventing anything but his head from extending in the direction of the primary fence; and WHEREAS, if both dogs were near the fence line when the fence board was displaced, "Makaha" physically would not be able to extend himself onto the King property because of the secondary fence, and as no secondary banier was inexistence on the King property, "Saake" would· be able to extend herself onto the Kashima property; therefore, substantial evidence exists to conclude thatthe attack must have' taken place on the Kashima property. . NOW,THEREFORE, in acèordance with Section 5.36.340 of the Dublin Municipå1 Code, I hereby find that, because "Makaha" was physically constrained from entering the King property, "Saake" attacked "Makaha" on the Kashima property, and therefore I hereby declare "Saake" technically fits the description of á vicious dog as defined in DMC 5.36.290 (A)(3). . ORDER I hereby order that the following conditions be imposed to address this nuisance: 1. The owner shall ensure that "Saake" is only out of the fenced backyard or residence when on a 6-foot leash and under the direct control of a competent adult. 2. The owner shall ensure that the heavy wire fencing voluntarily installed on their side of the primary/common fence subsequent to this incident is maintained in a manner sufficient to contain "Saake" within the fenced yard. In accordance with Section 5.36.290, this decision shall be final. ~ ,,- Signed: 1- 4l?!/~'/ - -. J:~ingham(Director/DeSignee NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL You have the right to appeal this decision to the City Council. Any appeal must be filed within five (5) calendar days from the date of issuance of this decision. A Notice of Appeal must be filed with the City Clerk· and shall state specific grounds as to why the decision should not be approved. Failure to file an appeal within the specified time limit shall constitute a waiver of the right to appeal and the attached decision shall be final. 7~~ '1 lÇDb ï'1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL (CCP Section lO13(a) - 2015.5) I am employed in the County of Alameda, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a party to the within action; my business address is 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. On August 26, 2004 I served the attached NOTICE OF VICIOUS DOG HEARING FINDINGS on the parties to said action by placing a true copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed as follows: Morgan King 8348 Creekside Drive Dublin, CA 94568 BY MAIL, I placed such sealed envelope, with postage thereon fully prepaid for first- class mail, for collection and mailing at City of Dublin, Dublin, California, following ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with the practice of the City of Dublin for collection and processing of correspondence, said practice being that in the ordinary course of business, correspondence is deposited in the United States Postal Service the same day as it is placed for collection. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Dublin, California, on August 26, 2004 b~, ~lJd:- 30 2004 02:29PM Pi CJ~*~!LYV (~::-n,(h ^ ~h6-lil ~ t "-U-. ~'IY'- ~\1; «- FROM FAX NO. ALl9. ~~"C ~ ~\!.-: n· R ':t:. ' .ß C. ì " t'~ ¡., MORGAN D. KING ATTORNEY & COuNSELOR AT I,..AW 7080 DO:sLON WAY, SUJTE ~Ð2 DUBLIN, CA 9<.\56$ I ~~ :"'~~ () /. 9'~ð'8~9'6363 FAX, 925-'S29-12e!t ~, mOrga.l1@tnorpnlcing.œm C\1'\f OF DlH3UN\ August 30. 2004 Office of the City Clerk City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 APPEAL OF FINDING RE: VICIOUS DOG HEARING Date of incident: July ) 4, 2004 Complainants: Myron & Pam Ka.cfuima On August 26~ 2004. Adrninistrative Analyst Amy Cunningham mailed to me a nolice of her fi.nding following a "vicious dog" hèåring on Augu.st 11, 2004. Her fUldil1g is that our dog, to wit, "Saake," is a '"vicio1...¡'; dog" and a ~¡public nuisance" pursuant to City of Dublin Municipal Code § 5,36.290(A)(3). We believe the evidence docs not support the findings, and the statute has not been àpplied in a reasonable nianner in this instance. We also believe the statute is too vaguely wordèd, 1acks adequate defInitions, and fails to provide-for consideratíon of all relevant facts. . Based on the above, we hereby appeal the findîng(s). !11 Ìì I Morgan K kin '- "!'. ATTACHMENT 5 AUG-30-2Ø0402:16PM IO)OUBLIN CITY MGR OFFC PAGE: 001 R=97% TEl) 17 tJD 1Þ¡ CITY OF DUBLIN RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, DENYING THE APPEAL OF MORGAN KING, AND AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER FINDING THAT THE DOG "SAAKE" IS A VICIOUS DOG AND ALL IMPOSED RESTRICTIONS SHOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT RECITALS WHEREAS, Morgan King, appealed the determination that the dog "Saake" is a vicious dog; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at its October 5, 2004, meeting, heard Morgan King's appeal pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code §5.36.080, which provides that any person aggrieved by an administrative decision pursuant to Chapter 5.36 of the Dublin Municipal Code, may appeal the decision to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the appeal process, set forth in Dublin Municipal Code § 1.04.050, requires the appellant to show cause, on grounds specified in the notice of appeal, why the action excepted to should not be upheld; and WHEREAS, on July 29,2004, staff received a report from Alameda County Animal Control regarding a dog on dog attack, that occurred on July 14,2004. The report stated that the King dog, "Saake", and the Kashima dog, "Makaha", engaged in a fight at the common rear fence; and WHEREAS, the animal control officer's report recommended that a vicious dog hearing be conducted. Pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code §5.36.020, the hearing was scheduled for August 11, 2004; and WHEREAS, the vicious dog hearing was conducted in accordance with Chapter 5.36 of the Dublin Municipal Code, on August 11,2004. The King Family and the Kashima Family appeared for the hearing; and WHEREAS, at the hearing, the Hearing Director determined that "Saake," the King family's dog, attacked Makaha, the Kashima family's dog, although it appeared that both dogs were engaged in mutual combat; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the hearing, property inspections were conducted by Animal Control and the Hearing Director at both the King and Kashima homes. It was determined that due to the fence configuration in existence at the time of the attack, "Makaha" was physically constrained by a small secondary fence from entering the King property; and therefore, the attack 1 A TT ACHMENT 6 (ß ~ 1" could only have occurred when "Saake" was physically on the Kashima property; and WHEREAS, based upon information contained within the Animal Control report, testimony and evidence presented by the hearing attendees, and property inspections conducted at the homes of both families, "Saake" was declared vicious, pursuant to DMC §5.26.290(A)(3); and WHEREAS, the Findings & Order from the vicious dog hearing were issued on August 26, 2004; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Dublin Municipal Code §5.36.080, on August 30, 2004, Morgan King appealed the Hearing Director's determination on the following grounds: "We believe the evidence does not support the findings, and the statute has not been applied in a reasonable manner in this instance. We also believe the statute is too vaguely worded, lacks adequate definitions, and failed to provide for consideration of all relevant facts." WHEREAS, the findings issued by the Hearing Director as a result of this incident are consistent with past findings and appropriate for the circumstances. FINDINGS WHEREAS, after considering the applicable laws and deliberating on all the evidence received, the City Council, on the basis of the foregoing Recitals, finds as follows: A. Substantial evidence exists to conclude that "Saake" bit "Makaha" on the Kashima family's property. B. The voluntary actions taken by the King's to address the fence situation were sufficient to reduce the risk of additional incidents from occurring. The restrictions imposed as a result ofthe Findings & Order do not require the Kings to take any further action as a result of this declaration. C. Saake's behavior, although less than severe, meets the technical requirement for a declaration of viciousness and the limited restrictions imposed are proportionate to Saake's behavior. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby determines that the August 30,2004, appeal of Morgan King is denied and the decision of the Hearing Director regarding "Saake," is hereby affirmed. ADOPTED, THIS 5th day of October, 2004, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS 2 7or~ 1t::t NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSTENTIONS: COUNCILMEMBERS APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK 3