HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.10 AppealMorganKing
CITY CLERK
File # D[5][Qg-[!][ZJ
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 19,2004
SUBJECT:
Resolution Making Findings, Granting the Appeal of Morgan King
from the Decision of the City Manager Finding that the Dog "Saake"
is a Vicious Dog
Report Prepared by: Elizabeth H Silver, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
1.
Draft Resolution Making Findings, Granting the Appeal of
Morgan King from the Decision of the City Manager Finding
that the Dog "Saake" is a Vicious Dog
Staff Report and Attachments from October 5,2004, Public
Hearing
2.
1$
Adopt the Draft Resolution Making Findings, Granting the Appeal
of Morgan King from the Decision of the City Manager Finding that
the Dog "Saake" is a Vicious Dog
RECOMMENDATION:
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
None
DESCRIPTION:
On August 30,2004, Morgan King appealed the Vicious Dog Hearing Director's determination that the
dog "Saake" is a vicious dog. 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 §5.36, may appeal the decision to the City Council. After considering
all documentary and oral testimony, the Council by a straw vote indicated it would grant the appeal.
The City Council did not find that substantial evidence existed to conclude that "Saake" bit "Makaha" on
the Kashima family's property within the meaning ofDMC § 5.36.290(A)(3); and, therefore, there is no
basis to find "Saake" to be a vicious dog within the meaning ofDMC Chapter 5.36.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council Adopt the Draft Resolution Making Findings, Granting the
Appeal of Morgan King from the Decision of the City Manager Finding that the Dog "Saake" is a Vicious
Dog.
-------~----------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------
G:\CC-MTGS\2004-qtr4\Oct\1 0-19-04\sr-vicious dog. doc
COPIES TO:
\ uti
ITEM NO. '+.1 0
G
\ Db'6 \..\
CITY OF DUBLIN
RESOLUTION NO. xx - 04
**********
A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS, GRANTING THE APPEAL OF
MORGAN KING FROM THE DECISION OF THE CITY MANAGER FINDING THAT
THE DOG "SAAKE" IS A VICIOUS DOG
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, it was noted at the hearing that this is "Saake's" first incident, and rabies
vaccinations are current; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to the hearing, property inspections were conducted by Animal Control
and the Hearing Director at both the King and Kashima homes. The Hearing Director concluded that the
common fence was configured such that "Makaha" was physically constrained by a small secondary fence
on the Kashima property from entering the King property, and it appeared that the attack could only have
occurred when "Saake's" mouth was physically on the Kashima property; and
WHEREAS, Dublin Municipal Code § 5.36.290(A)(3) requires an attack to occur on property
other than that of the attacking dog, and the fence was configured such that it is possible that "Saake" had
her entire body, including shoulders and all four legs, on the King's property; and
I G:\CC-MTGS\2004-qtr4\Oct\ 1 0-19-04\n:so-vicious dog, DOC
1
=r::\-C'f'r\ l\ \ \0 \0\ \ Q \ 04
ATTACHMENT 1
 0b'ð Y
WHEREAS, subsequent to the incident, the King family added heavy wire fencing to their side of
the fence that Alameda County Animal Control determined adequate to keep "Saake" in her yard; 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 § 5.36.290(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, at its hearing on October 5,2004, the Council heard testimony from, among others,
Morgan King, the appellant and owner of "Saake", and Myron and Pam Kashima, the owners of
"Makaha."; and
WHEREAS, there was uncontroverted testimony that the King's and Kashima's share a common
backyard fence; that the fence was constructed in a manner that the vertical wooden boards could be
pushed from the Kings' backyard towards the Kashima's backyard; that both families' dogs were in the
backyard on July 14, 2004; that both dogs approached the fence and barked; that no one was present when
the dogs began barking at each other; that both dogs sustained bites as a result of the incident on July 14,
2004; and that no one was present to witness the bites being inflicted on either dog.
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
WHEREAS, after considering the applicable laws, considering all the written and oral evidence
presented at the October 5, 2004 hearing and deliberating on all the evidence received, the City Council,
on the basis of the foregoing Recitals, finds that no substantial evidence exists to conclude that "Saake"
bit "Makaha" on the Kashima family's property within the meaning ofDMC § 5.36.290(A)(3, and,
therefore, there is no basis to find "Saake" to be a vicious dog within the meaning ofDMC Chapter 5.36.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Dublin hereby
determines that the August 30, 2004, appeal of Morgan King is granted and the decision ofthe Hearing
Director regarding "Saake," is hereby reversed.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 19th day of October, 2004.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:\CC-MTGS\2004-qtr4\Oct\\ o~ 19-04\reso-vicious dog.DOC
2
·
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 5,2004
CITY CLERK
File # D[5][Q]~-~[O
5õbZ~
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: ~
1. Open Public Hearing
2. Receive Staff Report and Public Comment
3. Close Public Hearing
4. Deliberate
5. Determination on Appeal
· FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
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 cOnllnotion outside and observed her Boxer, "Makaha," engaged in a fight at
the rear fence with Morgan King's Akita, ~~Saake." Ms. Kashima wentto 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.
None
A veterinary report later supplied to Animal Control by the Kashima's documented that "Makaha"
received puncture wOW1ds 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.
·
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~
COPIES TO:
G:\CC-MTGS\2004-qtr4\Oct\1 0-05-04\as-dog appeal. DOC
liD3
I
ATTACHMENT 2
'----
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 ß ~
inspections of both properties, the King dog, "Saake," was declared vicious, pursuant to DMC I Lr<;}....
§5.36.290(A)(3). This section presumes a dog is vicious when it engages in: "í vu
"An attack on another animal, livestock or poultry, which occurs on property other than that of the owner .
of the 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 confinned 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 of this inspection and upon further
review of the evidence, the Hearing Director detennined that a property inspection was also needed at the
Kashima family's home.
On August 18, 2004, the Hearing Director perfonned 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 of the 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 Au.gust 26, 2004 (Attachment 4),
with the following restrictions imposed:
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 6 OV2 ~
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 §S.36.0S0, 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 of this 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 of the owner of the dog. However, because ofthe
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 of the 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 toSaake'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 of the 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.
.
:5lfb?
I ~ ~ ,",,"
/ (
I. .'
ALAME!JA COUNTY SHERIFF'.S.o.lJ..r..l.cET~D
FIELD SERVICES KJi4l;jijlV.t!,¡
JUL 2 9 2ûO!¡
{J (Jb C¿Y
.
Type of Report: Dog on Dog Attack
Date of Report: 07-15-04
. Reporting Officer G.F. Potstada III #69
Owner King Morgan
Last Name . First Name
8348 Creekside Drive
Address /
925-829-2816
Home Teiephone:
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 Tele hone:
itness MorrisonDou
Last Naine First Name
8348 Creekside Drive
. Address
925-829-2816
Home Telephone:
DUBLIN POLICE SERVICES Page 1 of 3
Detail Number: 212
Incident Date: 07-14-04 @, 1430 hours
. í---l,-,
DOB
...
Age
94568
ZIP
S.
MI
DubUn
City
510-486-3445
Work Telephone:
K. .II lirUlm I LL
MI DOB
Dublin
City
925-830-1144
Work Tele hone:
F.
MI
Dublin
City
N/A
Work Telephone:
..
Age
. 94568
ZIP
,¡;¡,.
Age
94568
ZIP
Age
94568
ZIP
Witness
Last Name
First Name
MI
DOB
Age
Address
City
ZIP
flome Telephone:
Work Telephone:
Animal: Canine
Color: Tan & Black
Age: 3 Years
Name: "Saake" "-
License No. AC43042B Exp. 05-15-06
Quarantined At N/A
.dOUS Dog Hearing Recommendation
Breed:
Sex:
Weight:
Rabies Tag No.
City:
Master Sheet No.
Akita
F/S
75 lbs.
Exp; 05-15~06
Dublin
N/A
X Yes No
Field Services Bite Form
IO-S-OY
f.¿;;.;J.-.-
A TT ACHMENT 1
Page 2 of 3
íÖb6L.\
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 Iani.vedat 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 of the house 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 Tawny/Red 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 unlmown 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 fep.ce 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 1-1/2 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 myreturn 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 hewas 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 from 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
qu.arantine 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. ~1~~
---- -- -----------------~~~-~~~
eorge F. Potstada ill #69
ADimal Control Officer ,
Alameda County Sheriffs Office
.
.
(
,
(
/-, . OÙ,..
¿, 7)(..,;-,0·\
_. 'J
Page 30f 3
, .. '~', -.' ,
. ,
.-
(
, Dåte 9I15/"'J
i
I,
r: - - .R¡ibièS Va~cinðtiGnÈXp¡iiìtjon' D~te - -8/26:/06 -
r Bree- d- on_".......,.
(.DU,_
k ' :' "Hakaba n .6_ _'"
~.'?·i? - -' ,', -' .., - ::k:,_- x
t::~ ~
~,
~ Owner' -_~t.»t, :K'¡¡~h'¡.~ ---
f:'
ON. ~~l~pt~~ ' ,'TH1$·l3e'AfAIT, EXPIRES. -" .' -,<. ,- '.'
\'.'
., ,.
Phon~9:25ig~6,,:,:g?],C), '--
'i¡¡ 9 , .
Color
Fawn....
- ,·M/N
.' ,
, "", ' '
I , - '-I~ ¡-. -,~r ¡ ,':t Jlt I <C
. ^ . 1 ~,L '1 _.~J" ! '.\1 ,~~<¡;, X~lii ~~2
, . > . , ~ Ì'~'!' "
. , :. '<,.~/.:":;":":::";"'-'."<
. , .
. "
, ,.' ,- -"
[J ~sh Xi3Check 3333'.
.., , ' "
"
r:~e
,'.:\.:_1;00
.-,
- ,
:",:,. ,J,f, '" .
, - - 'P.eNA~D"_,
-,
'. -
t
t':,;
fl:':
~;,';
\ , ' ." :., ,. '.,
-sq"i5 ~,.,.i'th·n~ DdvQ " t()~ ,'~:.~,.',~;;~9,:
.;., ,DU:b-¡·ini -, ,,:.... - ':Ck94~,:'~::':::' .. -.If',;:,\{--' ;;'~;~~~"f'",-,
, ',.'
_. ..}l~·r. ".' \'
ALPHkOOPY:',
. ""1 .'. ,:. ." " ','. ..'. ' ': " " . - " . 1. ."" . . . ,. '~' .., " "',1. .. 'J' ",' ... s.~..." ,_'.r.., .~"_ ," "', '.":. ,,'
:. DOG TAGS MUST BE AFT ¡XED TO "HE COLU\R OF THE DOG f..\'f AU TIMES.
. '. ' . " . ,/, /"__, " _' . -,," ...: " . '. ( ~" ","', ,'."....,' ' ,.9' ;,',' .. ~... " ,,' " I .;:,. .. .., '.1.!4.... _," ,:, _.. J "'" ,
", ~'",~;~::.~~:~:,_::
,.
....~... .
~...~...,............,~..........-...
....'\<-..~
......"'.....
.......
.
-....",......
..._O ,..._~
._-'-""'~" ...-.,......:.....,
..'
..
.
·
.' . 'AI_êdå "'~upifY [Jog UIEenSe·'
~~Ø.~~~.b,h·~~~t~:~·<;o~ntYl'~~~ß;¡-' .~~
'c ~, ',' ,.i;,.,',../i>;: "::";', ,.c.: .. .,.,. ,~.p~ :AÇtl:~3:,(J:4:?;~
or;¡,..,- .~~¡JrJ'.i:··, ·:-"t.~.P. rrEXP1R,ES. '. ..'" ... ,..;,
..
," . '" -, ,,' '. .',' ;.¡':.
¡- ,- -~I'_'7\, ",~'II'-'I; ='.?¡Ít~
,I \ ~ _' ~~~~! ~ "'":1- ~<\~\0
;"- - '~_v~ ~.>~t\I' '~'~~t~
~ I~. -~j-~. \ I',-:(r:~ ?~r
.1 . '" L'
.. .
,. "f-
Daté'9l)I;jio~ . ··:PhooÞNÇj2sl$;!·~·q;' ;'~'¡;ß
. . . W9'25/8;Z9:"2S16'
',r: . . , " ,'"
Rabies \facciflatioo 8çplration Dátè .. S/lS/G6·
....... " . ..' M.·Ö.·.··
:BreeclAk1t.a. Color Tawny/~dk ~sk.D. cashD'\4IiIII!Œ
. .. '. #ÔG~8S6Ô19258 .
":.~Øè. ~W2~H"#~e'\ ·Sex. :.F/S. ·FEE ".. no
",; ,
.'~b~":.~~~an.Ei .N...~:..~,fpg'.:"·
,,'-
'. . PENALTY
. .'
. . . ""::'$341.' c~~"'~ ái A~ nd,v~
"..
·."fOTAL . 11. 00
¡~~../~,
;.rl·...: .
~..t¡'\;::.
.~_.....
·
'bfµ
V
. . ALPHA GOPY,-
. .. . 1/~lIðr¡.
P
¡{fO, rñ, '_ß~
@ - pv
. '--"l.ICYJ,' ' KØ
(,N' ''';;;p-' ~ JtPY'
·u
. ,
Q . ........'._.._--..~-......-...
IV "-.__
"'''"---...,..._~
_._'--"'-"~.'.."-.,.....:......,
·
"",.-:1
j I ð[)&lf
_~""~"_r·~_
."'''.''''.'--~~'':.:'''' .', ...n.......
l", .... '.'~. ___--..-_._n .'. ~'~';-~::::,:'·"~~~,~.,..I"'~'.--'~'7'.'''_~~'_..''''''''''''''''_'''''''''''K'j IWr.t'ff'I'......_,_~~:
,....
~.
:,:;", ,
¿ -
'"';,
ALAMEDA COUNTY HEALTH CARE SERVICES' AGENCY
Public Health SerVice
NOTICE TO QUARANTINE ANIMAL
ð'..3I/ð' ~£' S/~. .l)r,
Address
TO
//'od6Aµ )(:,A/q
, . Owner/Responsible' Person
9ó7-S' -2õ29~ ~/¿"
. . Phone umber
uv.64;;
City .
Description of Animal
/l ~ /F.q .t, MWrif / ¡¿c! .
r¿.
In compHance wit e 17, C,yfo ia Adminis~ive Code: Sectio~ 260~ (b), (1), .(2), and (3) you are hereby notified th~t it ,is
necessary that your ., .K , be Isolated In stnct confinement underproper care and observatIon In a
place and inanner appr d by th,e Health Officer for a period of14 days (dogs and cats 1 0 ,clays) after the day of infliction of the
bite. Approved places for confinementarç: localanimal control she·lters. 'Oikland SPCA;, or '\tetcrinaiy hospitals. Confinement on
owner's premises, at an approved boarding ke~nelpra:t a vetetinarian 's hospital tnaYb6 perinitted undertonditions outlined for
Isolatioriòn ownei?s'premises on reverse side. 'rheanilTtaI may not be trloved without, permission.The publiCHe.alth Service
. assumes no responsibility fore*penses incurred in .isolating an aniinaL . .' '. ,
. I .. '. ". ,", ".' .,' . .. ,
Ifaniinål is ünIícensedandnotvae~¡IIatecl for r¡,¡bies, íicçtiširig àndvaccinatÍ\'m. ~hall' berequited,prior tb ani~àl':; r.elease from
. quarantine. '. , .. ." '...,', ., '. . .,' ", ,.'. '. ,
~'~ ,".. . ".' ~::';' ,~
.,f··...,·.
BY ORDER OF THE COt;JNTY HEALTH6F.p.CEA
Date,;fB';~e -"'Ofl-/0 @þ( .' ".', ....~~t~ofRelease·'
hsued.w,:,¥-~(....,tl(,~-r€~;a·."~~~::,,,'.:~~~e)·,.', ',.
.',' , ',,' "Aé!So'IIA"\""~Mtt '."
. :t:~t·e~~:":'7·,~·»·;:¡,li~Ÿ:;;:,:··::·.:·'"...,:~':.~..::.
,..',!J4 '.;. ., .C£. ·L,,,,,., ",~ . "., ,", ... ."
R'''¡V~d¿y1f;~;W;~ .··.~1Ú-~j¡n/(N.~) ...
4OQ..WC+1O/97 ·VZ;;~z.~P:f) .~/S'I.ð.:f&'lS.
...., ,," '. ¡ .~:' &,L' '0" .:." '~:. .~'.. ~'.ï..' \'. :1(: ,1." '\'~,,,:,,, ''i':i. :'ï.. ~ ~;~:!;'';'''~ .......,-.. . ...no'! I ."....
\ ~ f.i;!.' >~:" ",:.~¡.~ ',':1, ." ,,:,~ , ': < '~¡':11:"I,,{ ¡
"
. , ".; .. ."
.':·:d;~~CŸ.tx~X ,.
. ". ".,' .,'" "",: ,p.,,;,., .,.
·'·i·,';"·!;.',::,··:.:." .. .'
, 1Ssp¡;ci:rg'ÄNlMAi:Ów'~ER .'
. ' , ','" , " :: ,,~. .,"", II!. ...... , ",,'"
., .. ,.RETAINEG;$y,ÎSSUINQN:!ENOY ..
~SÌ;m1T:9NCETbÞliffitÇr OFFICE..
, 'EN\fÌF!ONMENT~L HÉALm,sERVicES .
,;;
., .
R!ECEIVED
JUt 2 9 7:n'¡
DUBLIN POLICE s;~nv:C¡a:,
.
'.
;'..~~.¡.'~ .;
.
(
(
IdvðòßY ,
. ~ //(.:<tJzJ~
!f/rèer. G~ !¿r/þ~
tl1rll1f~ 0,. ~//nd (J¡y¡fypf
«.,~ I
ad' .~ ~ ~¿> (}.t~~¿y
~~ .
. .f!.McIM. tG Ita ~ ~
úf:Þ(J -/t{c¿¡-- rue¡- dug , ~
. . . ~Sfv/ud. ¡ÞtnCft:</C. ø.n.{/1.:::(cS 1Ì'1J'/Cte.
M !tjJ-.j a,~~.
,Þ~J-c fli/.{ ffi# -ø ~ ~ t(/e
Ufì/I ~ k.æn-ä-7"· 'l 0/7'?-
..I"CfttI1B-Cl ~1/ M a;,mnLS
¿:v/ø'7<¿' óZ¿.I ~ M- J1 J1-.r¡;% ... :31/'ÝC.
~ ft'" .' r:9ý~~r~
.~ ðrl!f:;;:t;.~ . ¡am lV'~hzz
~. . NÚJ. ~ Pyl'tv..' ~.'~. __. ~è
. ~1ft~Q .. - (, ..
t..:.ME OF PET· .
"..,0" tíÎ i ,
/. b~
,~ í5b'
MA'STER PROBLEMS
pATE
.
NO.......
, ,
, NEDICATIOII/
FEE
'f. f'/-tJ..!
.
, .
. ....,
.
·
·
·
(
(
July 20, 2004
ALAMEDA ANIMAL CONTROL
Attn: Officèr George Potstana
SUBJECT: DOG ATIACK
8348 Creekside Drive, Dublin,
I faxed a copy of the doctor's report on Wednesday afternoon which detail that punctUre
wounds were found inside ofMakaha'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 forwarding pictures ofMakaha's wounds, along with copies of correspondence
of past reports of property damage to the fence caused by the King's dog(s). These
instancës have made us fearful to be in ouT own hack yard. Because of this situation, we
have kept our dogs inSide the house for their safety since we neverknow 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 unfortunate 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 infonnation from us, please do not
hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
..
Myron and Pamela Kashima
8335 Brittany Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
925.556.9239
f}\ ..¡,k6~e>
I-~ !}ßl\
(
(
-....
1 :tL~ ~ t-(
.
~'
.,
,.
~. ....;
~..
.l~~~L
.
17 op"8Q
--
.
.
/
I
(
~ -4
1 <ß~ ßy
~'r"_li.''''''.
, I.I~...,,:
,¡},..,. '.,.'" " .
""'¡'J'.'.
·
'" !J"~;.t\:':3{., .'i'.
'J~"~~~;&:y.".
·
.~, .- ·......~,·_"v_
~~,~"~~~~.:~
'.
.'i.:;",;;~.,.~
·
,¡!..,,;.
(
" . _ 4'1,
,q ~ß Lf
""-
. July 15,2004
·
SIL VERGA TE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSN.
% Common Interest Management Services
315 Diablo Rd, Suite 221
Danville, CA 94526
Attention: Ms. Renee Vizza
Commw1Ïty 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 of the King's dogs broke though the fence again and this
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 clog 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 öf the fence.
·
Be advised that the Alameda Animal Control has also filed a report regarding tlùs vicious
dog attack. ' '
We feel that the inaction by the Homeowners Association has allowed tlùs 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,
..........
)/ÞhHÚf ~
I Myron and Pam Kashima '
8335 Brittany Drive, Dublin, CA 94568
cc: Alameda County Sheriffs Dept - Animal Control
·
(
(
50 $:i~
·
dìtl-<¡- /L!;:<tJ¿J.!j
tPffèer G{:r~ ft/5Þv'11( .
á&11i{£La .&. Át~f /11Æ,( L¡ïy7/rp(
·
at! ~N:;:-. J?WJ' {}ttt>-KS7;:œ. Ør
. AWtÞ1- - .
.Ji-fa clad. cd ftt.e d~Y n¡OiY¡-
*hLJ '-!-iiCif f1ii! dog , Mtl/Ùz!-tq
!}-¡( s ftt.r'met. ¡aifl cfr-{ n: tt)/?'W /1d S, I ì-1S1 de.
I1Ú it!. ¿:j C.l1/'c£.
'1 &êð-C a Mitu; --It; ü:~r re~. U/C-
uP'1I akJ it ¿prl4 ~.~ Þ{ ~T7
¡þ'cjz-..{/"1t24 8hn.cf1J /tN tl~n¡/5. .' . '. _
· 1..//7 1þ{~.>fiP;1<¡ Cß-é·( ~ arJ7/·-4--7G-344'b
~'--; !/ -SÙ'7Cé'rJr ..
fPg3!J /31¡f!'f~ {)ý lam K,r41'ur71-f....
Û71 ÞY/:.."A .
JIl56ßY
~.~ ~ )A/I'tv, ..
"rAllfJfriT ...,
to :.ME CF. PET .
c~aØv",è
"
MASTER PROBLEMS
p,':"TE
NO_
. ,
SO A P _ PR08L'EM, HISTORY.
EXAM. PROCEDURES
~,fùth t'1 ;/" (YyO<
PHYSICAl EXAluNÁ1Ioti
MEDIÇA.TION
FEE
lIt/-a!
fl.
'2./
151'" W II/Iíðl1If m ØII). difone.i III ft5 ....
II'ID' c.... c~ .., c...... 0"""""
0l1li...... cltrt""" o/fttl....... þ........
mws .... nfJ_ c.... nmfll'll øI.",,¡ nl1__ ""-'
c,.". mnIS c""""¡ ørs Q""" _IJ~
c~___ D~___ D/fttI~ Dk
ØIW ....,...........,¡ r
f
I
III'
c
DS
'-
-
-J
."
-e
Jul-lS,...04 Ol:03P
~(~~¡
1!
- '''i ~I
'¢ (~ <. .
en '" Q :ë
U<c .::
....- 0
Z z: c:
I.L. ...... ': ~
>;:jr;, . ~
a:<tf̡ is
c( u ,.... . -..... ~
Z -N . :¡¡-
_0..... c:
a: a: 0 .
ILl 0 in· ..
t-Z- c:
W<·· ,~
>~~ ..g
ct.IZQ ~ )(
ct.IO<ð:: &.
a:"?1.JJ .!;Iî
(.) 11Ï...J ( ) ill,.
W :?:: ~ ë'f-1
....... . iI:~
:J or; !. g]
.......... ."'''
m g ~J!.2.
; ~i~
10 .2.110
.... w" .!! ..
~ .~ 1: ~
« IÎÎ - g~
z 2" u_
P' .....::: i ..
II: zc(~c
W CI w '6'UJ
z ~ ..J...Z
B: ¡ UJa::.!!:!
o L .. II)
.
..
Blue Cross Vet Cl;n;c
1-510-276-8770
w
>- ~,
t: I/)
)0> 0
- ). Z 0.. ::r
. ' lI:~o 01/) ~
,... (¡(') 0 ~ii1o -õ "'I;
Q I/) z,...-z~ I/)~_ wu
~ Z I/) -o~wo ~,« w~
~ 2 ~ > ->o..OW~I O~ii1 ~~
> wI/) o~ II) II: lI)oc(~rw~ wll:« ~
OZ~ ~~u > ~ 0 ~05oulI:c( z2z >-
0-« -2< u w ~~«~( )~Q~o.. c«( )« «
...I 5 ü Iii « It' . c( õ c( « z 0 z ~ 0 ~ g :: z :r: Q _.
2o~ ¡:~!:< ~ x ~ß~~;Zw95~' w~5 I ~~
CII:( ) ZOw c( II: m~~u!l):rmur ~~W ...I _
~OOO~OOO¡oqo00050DOOODOOOOiDDODOOOO~~
Iñ cd...: CIÕ cñ g~
~!rJt ~
z ~:~!.! W~ ffi Z'A
o. :;::.' II) Z It' ~ ~ 0 ëí :r:
¡: ~ LL~:_! 'A;5 ::; E ° 2 t- )0 ~ Z ¡: Z I-
-'" - i: 'I ~ z Z w w ~ ( ) ...... 0.. « w .... _ «
'o. ( ) 0wI U <0 0« 'II) m
~>ffij ° o~~o..u > NZI/)ZIl:~~~~ 0 $
I-~~o< ã ffi!l)a:...Ia:~< a::o~<zQ!~<a:a:~w ZII»
ª~~:r:O ~0o..E~~>~~ ~z<~Q~~~w~oæ~~. Q!a:: ~
> ~ J: ~ ~ « ~ ~ !;¡: ~ ::( ~ ~ ~º I ~ ~ ~ ..d~ 2 !2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ t; ~ Q
w ..>. c.; «:) ~ m Ii; 0.. 0.. II: II: Z - ...J ,. a: It) « W c ~ U) a: ~ II) _ Q w I wow a: ~
" . . w W 0 ,,« - Ww «0:( c( J: 0:( ::: 0 0 z -, W .,.J aI « c( « 0:( W .,.J 0 W Z ;:¡ u
Qa::rJ: ua:c:r...lo..o..o..a:u o~~«~~~«wuuz~~ ~VI«OO .D
OOO~OOOOODOODO ~DDDt\oOOOODDOOO ~. ODDn~·
I"oÍ 1 pf"\ ..¡ , ~
*
~
~~
-~ ~
~:~
,'\) '-'
......
~
~
{
~~ ~
1·.··.····~i.i
...~
"
~
}
- ~~
:;}2 õ(j
ò
(J
ri
u
<II
'"
ò
>
'"
a:
~
o
,.,
.,
N
Q
.(
u
<
:¡;
:!
.J
<
¡...
III
II.
Û
!
IIi
:E
IrI
....
..
>-
ell
I I 0
11:
III
I .,
.,
, .,
('
Q-t ~~L
SiIvergate Highlands Homeowners Association·
c/o Common Interest Management Services
315 Diablo Road, Suite ZZl
Danville, CA 945Z6
March 5, 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 letter of February 26, 2004. I apologize that the
enclosures were omitted from the mailing. Please find enclosed information provided by the
Kings regarding the fence/ dog concern,
Please keep me apprised of the situation.
Sin , i
:~~--
Community Manager
By direction
Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association
~.
Cc: Alameda County Shenift's Department - Animal Control Division
H:\Silvergate HighIan'ds\Correspondence\8335 Brittany dog 0304.doc
Phone 925-743-3080
Fax 925-743-3084
·
·
·
·
·
·
ø-4 F5j) ~ t-{
,'.)..i r
(Jr'·,
.\
'>1
\ \
\j
November 10, 2003
Myron
RE: Fence replacement
Dear Myron:
Could you tell us jf you are agreeable to going in 50/50 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 endosed a copy of the. contract.Y our Æ,h¡ue would be $1.870.
If we have YOUI' agreement to go ahead. please sign or initial the contract and fax or mail
it back to us.
Thanks!
vJ}IJí
\jJ; .
V.{J-}
~W,6
t ,.
//
,
1
f
--
í /
I L/
t·>
,Morgan D. King
Nancy Finley-Kin
8348 Creekside Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
(925) 829-2816 home
(925) 829-6363 work
.'
..':~·l...~:·. )'1'(. ,Ih",
, .
...~.
~'~9Ð~Y ,
P!<.J<:mt, 'IL I :A;j..¡'ih(·.
. ...' ,",,'. -,.. )1"
¡,J.'¡) 4.:rf_IIt,~~J
F,,\ i')2'i \ Ihl· ~~<t~
BORG REDWOOD FEN ~ES
Fences · Decks- Retaining \Valls · Chain Link
Liietime \\Tarranry Vinyl ,
Ut-: =ìilï"¡ FENCING CONTRACT . P~~·E__Jj.f.xWs_.~>__ nu.
,,·w\\.,prgk:h:<·., ;'In. '" .0. --."-.,_~
~~: ~~~:T O~~'~~' -r£_.-J--p 3yr-.t---¡ '~~7' ~ ---.. a_.__ ----.--..---'.. ---.- ---'... --..-
JOB CITY_______. __no ZIP to~E -.5lf.?lí-r:..- .__~..m_::;__-----.. _.__u_ --_ u._.... _.. '_.
CROSS STREET -Si n______._._ PHONE {H}~'::~_.._ (wJ..R:.2g.~*3, ---'_'.m_
FAX ,
GENERAL EXISTING COND/};'ONS -----.-----_-,-___
1, TERRAIN OCFLAT 1:3 SLOPE 2. F;'NCE EXISTS'? 0 NO 6\ES STYL~ :bl~.-- _. ____. .
3, CONDITION OF EXISTING FENCE? -.f?bt1¥-._____ CAUSE OF DAMAGE? ~~..n-_.---L1i!il, 17f.~~_._7iûL}f.
4 VEGETATION ~NO ^'";:¡ ~~~ J 5. REPAIR EX!STING __-L....___.___.__-'-____.. OF FENCE.
6. REMOVE EXISTING -~hL.- LN. FTOf, FENCE. HAUL OFF PROPERTY BY; l)õ CONTRACTOR :t OWNER .
7, INSTALL NEW PRESSURE TREATED POSTS IN 4 OF CONCRETE AT APPROX, _ri____ ON CENTER.)!;)4X4 :¡ 4x6 :J 6xò
8 INSTALL KICKBOARD ß N~ J!l YES SIZE - INSTALL BULKHEAD Û YES ::J NO SIZE __..___
9 INSTALL ..JQ NEW -~ _ REDWOOD RAILS - CON COMMON ':J CON HEART
, 0 INSTALL J:2 NEW .--1 X ~ REDWOOD FENCE BOARDS ft'cm.¡ COMMON CI CON HEART
11, INSTALL--",,__ 0 NEW --"'" GATES:t REUSE GATES· :J OTHER ,_ _____.___.. .' ..n_~..._____.
12. FENCE TOP TO: .~UN LEVEL ¡:, CONTOUR ~TEP, 'ijITH THE SLOPE OF THE GAOUNO---" . --"---.-
,3. SEAL. CONDITION AND PROTECT FENCE FOR AN ADDITIONAL _."i':::::"_ LN. FT ONE SIDE OF FENCE: _':::r..~:'::'" LN. FT BOTH SIDES OJ:
FENCE. (OPTIONAL) PLOT PLAN NOTTO SCALE
VÞ
(ð)/lo'
... 'I ~, '.
Y/La~~ / fñ1¡f~Æl1
';£? db"'Kd, p^ -F"Rli.l~ ~.d<
P...tJ::-biLJ:) ,t;h luJå1tlJ 1<:At ~_
BtB..eOAAQ ON BOARD
~'-~IIrFAN 57YI..E 'i.¡;'H.lV&rt.'::i;
.I
[-t;~;Ka~ . .--/
~x1:1h~. ~C~·
___~T__
'"' ~ '1' Î~;;"-£
1.~.ir_CdC ie£ - q f{'-ð¡(~. FRONT IQ.Jß.L J
. /9 C¡ /C('90 (S50Ö:oõM'NiMUM CHÃ'RGË)---'
,iver of Re~ponsibility: BORG REDWOOD FENCE hoids no liability for landscaping. sprinkler, drain. teleµnone. r.a!;¡ral gas, ei5Ctricat or property lines. Aooihonaliy, we '1¡.id '1o fiat);h!!
sp;!tting & cracklOg of wood unless cl'Iicks a,-e more than l' wide horizontally. This job wt1i require drilling ¡mc Llnknown geological condÎ,ior¡s. BORG REDWOOD :P''¡CES VI';i £UPD'y
highest quality cof1vemional augers to perform Ir.is task. In the event we shovld encounter geological forma,ions ¡hat inhibi: us 10 dti/i 1'0' !n 5 minutes. addit'onal çhe.~çesl-''')· ~CC-~f
:us:omer or any other µerson(sj stop the job orœ in prog-ess, a $5000!r:! :Jr S250.OQfday charge will be assessed. I have read and unOO"5tana a!l or the ..bOw co'.Oh:Of~~
.LL OF THEA80VE WORK T BE COMPLÈTED IN A sue 'I NTIAL AND WORKMANLIKE MANNER ACCORDING TO THE STAN)ARD PRACT,CES FOR hiE SU\\ OF'
YMENT: . h _ _..__.____, _~__________________ DOl1a~___.__. _._ .__
accounts not paid with thirly ( ) days 01 Ihe d e shown abo 'e are $ub;eç1 to a fat!> charg"l of ,; ·"0 per month (18% per annum) unlll pakt in It.!!
Ji) GUARANTEE
R ___ ___ YEARS FROM CONTRACT DATE. BORG FENCES W'LL REPLACE ANY POSTS. FOUND UPON EXAMINflTION TO BE A07TEQ,
IS GUARANTEE COVERS MATERIALS ONLY. ALL GATES ARE GUARANTEED 1 YEAR FROM INSTALLATION DATE.
I
I
I
L
,
--I
E.'LN:lLREMOV~1._-1..._ _..__u.._ ...__.
o NEW FENCE~'-:_'l.
---L/i.2fLÇ;rþc.
-.-."-- .------ _1>.___,_._. .-.__.. .--.f cJ !
~;:f-(j?trlécf$ _.~~ _..._.
HOUSE
r
I
__I
P'F.P'CTt.RE F;:¡AME
PiT "PREi>SURE TRF ATE::-,
.._'--_.._,--_.~--_._--_. .-.-.-. _.....
--~-.............-_--_._---_..-.._"._~~._..
...
-~-------,~ -----. ..~-~ -_._~~-
Seal e.nd Pr~:ec., F~-;;;~ì
(Optjona~¡ $e8;,1] a:x.'.,l'
O;'1e Side -' ve~ .J N;:;
BoH~ Ski(;'!! J Yes :.J ",.~,
.
'¡!"'Ü t'A~'f;~Ii'lr'I<' I ~n í.8~'.. ."y t.nrm·ac.tÙf, sut cnlractt:.'r. l¡:¡b\:H~·.. n":.ñ.terir\lm~n C" otr¡er pet$O:1 wr(' !.bpS :.;: Imç;~ J\'t' )'(,:"11 pit'f,'..-=r:y f.:lfld ;:1 :".)1 r..ù :; ;':'., ~I ~~. ;~~',;' ~,(., '. I! i ~. ~
. ~, I·..... ". ....r.' t ~1":'''' ,.r 11ic " ~<!II'r, .-;f"¡n 1"1::-;1 V~,¡C:i ~~í·:.L-t ~~, (::i'j :~-¡.;;t.Wr~ arc ~i1'ql,.iril'-d by 'aw t~ b~" I :':-\-f":I".~d ~~~! r~;JI.'j;:lI¡:;'(:' tj',,' !r ¡ ; ,::-I~~rí1:""!t~, ~ ....:.~:f: ! ':-.f'~'. ".f Sr ;.' .....,
-~~.~-~.
·
(
(
I.' '\.
February 26, 2004
SIL VERGA TE HIGHLANDS HOMEOWNERS ASSN.
% Common 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 ofPebruary 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:
1. The King's aggressive dog has broken'through the fence from 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
- ....
dLo~~L~
(
. -""'14
d7~8L/
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 forwarding all correspondence to you regarding this matter as a courtesy.
It appears to me that this matter can be resolved once and for all, if both you and the King's
can replace this fence as soon as possible.
Please keep me apprised of the situation.
Sincef,e~
c:1~;,' ")
~~~z "
L/ Community M ~
By directi .~-
Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association
Cc: Alameda County Sherriff's Department - Animal Control Division
H:\Silvergate Highlands\COITtspondence\8335 Brittany dog 0204.doc
Phone 925-743·3080
Fax 925-743-3084
·
·
·
·
·
·
(
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 of action 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 inform the Association of future incidents. We do NOT consider this
a closed matter.
Sincerely,
.... ../.
--¡---£r-<¢~ rY7~.
/ M~on & Pam Kashima
8335 Brittany Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
Cc: Alameda County Sherriff's Dept - Animal Control Division
:ì ~'.£V ~ ~
Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association
c/o COouDon Interest Management Services
315 Diablo Road,.Suite 221
Danville, CA 94526
December IS, 2003
Myron & Pam Kashima
8335 Brittany Dr.
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: Animal Concern
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kashima:
,
dJl~84
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!
SincereJ,Y
--' . .
i..". ~.,./. .,,\
, l·k~
R~ee VlZza .. ., /)
- Community Manager
By direction
Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association
Cc: Alameda County Sherriff's Department - Animal Concrol Division
Phone 925·743·3080
Fax 925-743-3084
- '"
.
.
'.
·
(
December 1, 2003
SIL VERGA TE·HOMEOWNERS ASSN
% COMMON INTEREST
A TTN: Renee Vizza
SUBJECT: Minutes of Board Meeting
Dear Renee:
(
~ 30 éigtl
Please forward 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, ,..
~A~"'J':7A-
A~ela S. Kashima
8335 Brittany Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
(
31 0.08Y
October 28, 2003
SIL VERGA TE HIGHLANDS OWNERS ASSN
% Common Interest Management Services
315 Diablo Rd, Suite 221
Danville, CA 94526
Attention:. Renee Vizza
Conununity 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 document 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.
Sinc,erely,
r·b k/.
<'-f. &..<'£"¿'LL /;;--........"'L-
/,
¡Myron and Pam Kashima
I 8335 Brittany Drive, Dublin, CA 94568
cc: Alameda County Sheriff s Dept- Animal Control
·
·
·
·
·
·
(
---.J
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=¡ma
8335 Brittany Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
'''1-
..J'~ I (
. 3 d-- iYD 'ß'-1
(
(
33 L~84
October 10, 2003
SIL VERGA TE HIGHLANDS OWNERS ASSN
% Common Interest Management Services
315 Diablo Rd, Suite 221
DanvilJe, CA94526
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 Sheriff's Dept - Animal Control
·
·
·
(
(
_ 34 ~g~
·
Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association
c/o Common Interc:st M·anagc:mc:nt Services
315 Diablò Road, Suite 221
Danville, CA 94526
October 7, 2003
Myron &P am 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 DÎIectors at theÎI next meeting for their review.
Thank you in advance for your patience and cooperation.
Si~;;~lY'~'/'"
". ....L---.
/~-iétVïzz _~
,,'" ~: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 Vìzza'
Community Manager
SUBJECT: 8348 Creekside Drive
Dear Ms. Vizza:
On October 4th, the dog from 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 additionai 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 supervis~on 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 Sheriffs Dept - Animal Control
95" (ì~y
·
·
·
·
·
·
... _;'I',},
3LÞ ~~~
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 of their dog breaking through
the fence.
In addition, we had recently received a complaint about our dogs' barking and rn1ll1ing
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 anyoneftom Animal control to accept
our complaint unless we submitted it anonymously. We can call in an anonymous report
iftbat 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 ftom Animal Control to help us in this matter.
Sincerely,
Myron Kashima
(
Silvergate Highlands Owners Association
c/o COlJW)on Interest Management Services
315 Diablo Road. Suite 221
Danville. CA 94526
September 12, 2003
Myron & Pam Kashima
8335 Brittany Dr.
Dublin, CA 94568
,RE: Animal Concern
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Kashima:
3J ~ ~y
This letter is to let you know that your concerns with the d.og 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 concemsor 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
·
·
·
·
·
·
('
~ 3ß ~ßLt
October 6, 2003
SIL VERGA TE mGHLANDS OWNERS ASSN
% Common Interest Management Services
315 Diablo Rd, Suite 221
Danville, CA 94526
Attention: Renee Vizz"
Community Manager
SUBJECT: 8348 Creekside Drive
Dear Ms. Vizza:
On October 4th, the dog from 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 ·ofthis
most recent occ1,1ITence 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 aggressivèbehavior
during the times we are in bur 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,
~. .~ .
-"' f"'....
. . "t'.c--??~
yron ~nd Pam Kashima
335 Brittany Drive, Dublin, CA 94568
cc: Alameda County Sheriffs Dept - Animal Control
.
~. -
- y"f 1\
~...
f'
39%~L!,
·
Cvr4
\ V\ (itU. wr-
·
n . ...ai ye)
K¿~í
·
(
~.
.
~. ~O~8-:1
~
-.....J
~
--.
,,'\-,j
.- ""c:
~~
~
~
if'J
-id
~
'..~
,,\.Í'
>
\'0
ç.
,~
-5
..v
"-::0.(
ç
\0
~
ç
~ .~
.~l-
(.).
-:2.
~
~
~
2)
c::
+-
2s
~
(
tfl Db 8L1
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,
. ,
o .---..., ,., '., ,-/- '//
RerJé vìZzã~-.,
Community ¥á'nager-'"
By direction"
Silvergate Highlands Homeowners Association
Phone 925-743~3080
Fax 925-743·3084
·
·
·
·
·
·
(
-
September 3,2003
"' - of!.
Liz. Pt/6t/
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 thaton 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 puUtheir dog away trom the
fence.
These incidents are occurring more frequently. The barking and pounding on the fence
from their dog happen on a daily basis when their dog hears us outsi<ie.
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 ¡{~û 1~ /(-/¿;,/,{~( <'--
Myroh and Pam Kashima
8335 Brittany Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
Cc: Alameda County Animal Control
(
.:::..
+-
~
'...:)
.'....)
èi
43 öt> 8L/
.
~
+- .
~
J)
.
(
(
g4~q
·
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 attàck us and our
dogs and as a result the fence between us gets damaged. These attacks have become
more ftequent. We now cannot enjoy our own backyard in peace and quiet without being
barked at or terrorized by your dog. Our dogs cannot run ûee 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
·
(
4s~,~q
August 28, 2003
·
Sheriff Charles C. Plummer/Officer Bowman
Alameda County Sheriffs Office
Field Services
4595 Gleason Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Sir(s) 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 wilJ also note that we keep our dogs
INSIDE the house because of their dog(s)' barking and aggressive behavior.
I amnot 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 an owed to run loose and I can assure you that AT NO
TIME are they ever allowed outside of our property and unfortunately, because of the situation
with our back neighbor, they do not even run fTee 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 we]} 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 satisfy the complaint against our animals. Please contact me at
925.556.9239 if you need more information 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 wen as what we have done on our part to curb this vèty ft(¡-strating
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.
...
·
( MORGAN D. KING (
A'l"TORXEY &. COUXSELOR ..o\.T LA\V
7080 DOXLü);' WAY, surr:r-: 22~
DUBLIN. CA f~4568
I' .
t.JlDt1f'bi.-Í '
·
_._~._-_....._..._----
n~;j'8:!~'· e~H~~ F.\.X U~f >1~~~·7~(i:1
E:~ 1_,\ 1 J . tl'¡ t)rµitJI¡~~1 !1~)r!!iJr.ktljJ! .('¡)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 In 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
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.
8348 Creek~ . rive
Dublin, CA
cc: Myron Kashima
encl.
. .....t"\,
'-17 ~ßL/
·
·
·
·
·
·
t.f ß ì5b E6L/
August 20, 2003
Mrs. Nancy King
8348 Creekside Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Nancy:
This 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 ofthe fence but your dogs
continue to break through.
As good neighbors, we have done everything 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 wWle I was home.
I fmd it extremely unfair that our dogs are restrained and your dogs are allowed to run
free 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 ifthey will be safe ÍÌ"om your dogs!
Sincerely,
'"
.~
/ p~ Kashima
::::> Cc: Silvergate Homeowners Assn.
('
-¿
'-fq ~ gtl
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 from 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 wen being;· Weare 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 Alamooa County Sheriff's
Department.
·
Please contact us at 925..,556-9239 and let us know how the Association will be handling
this matter. We would appreciate copies of any letters forwarded to the King's for our
records.
Sincerely yours,
fYÍ¡~C'l,j/L~ /0/¿ é
Myron and Pam Kashima '
8335 Brittany Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
·
,.-; ...-. ~I
·
:"~,.; ~ ~..~ ~ L ¡ i
('
" : ¡; ¡...' ,''': h c j'! n·'·,; () ¡f¡ ii,.
50 B 8t.f
FIELD SER\"!CES, 4S4S GLE-\SO:-\ DRI\'l':. !)['BLI\:. C:\ '¡4;if)/-;
(925) ¡¡O,;·7040 . F:\X (92.1\ HO.\-7044 .
{I! \I':i.ì·" i i'i! \¡\ily, "II\,I(!\ 1-
7\IARSHAL" COROXER - Pl.'BUC AmUXISTRATOR
DIRECTOR OF E~IERGE~CY SER\"ICES
August 20, 2003
To the Residents of
8335 Brittany Dr.
Dublin, CA 94568
We have received a complaint fÌoma 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 itis 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 infonnation 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
, ' ~ ,~ n ,,' __ ",.,_
Á).(._~--.:,::r-_.,----¡
B. Bowman
Animal Control Officer
Department of Field Services'
.~
Enclosures
·
Barking DogÜr. doc
KecanSlderatl0n ot tmding
, ,
('
Page Jof 1
5 I "11.~ ~
Amy Cunningham
From:, Morgan D. King [morgan@morganking.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 9:03 PM
To: amy.cunningham@cLdublin.ca.us
Subject: Reconsideration of finding
.
Ms. Cunningham - please 'see attached.
- Morgan King
.'.
.
A TT ACHMENT 2
8/12/2004
·
"
·
·
(,
!Sz~'f·
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 of this letter is to request that the "finding" made at the meeting of August
11, 2004, that the dog owned by myself, namely "8aake," 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 not 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 witnessesdoes 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 ofthe 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
(
--,
53 ~ 8LJ
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's feet 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
interpretation.
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 purpe>ses for which
the statute was drafted. I do not believe that the statute was drafted to result in this kind
,of a finding. , : :
Doug,twho resides with us, has been walking Saaketwice a day around the)block for two . .
years, ion 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 affectioriate 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 ifthey 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
1f~""'Creekside Dr. Dublin. r.·"1'1J\
J odd and Leslie Forsythe .
_ Creekside Dr.Dubli~
Bob and Colleen Petersen
_Galway Court Dublin~
Larry and Lisa Barbier
tBJiCreekside Dr. Dubli~
Dave and Pam Crowfoot
_Brittany Drive Dublin'-'
Mike and Mickey Fisher
~reekside Dr. Dublin-',
3
'-. "'Q
54 ~ 84
(
5~S- ~ ß~
Ron and Barbara Bissinger ~.
lIfIt'Mataro Court Pleasanton ~
Dean and Naomi Franco
Franco Ranch, Highway 84, Livermore"jf [>f1rr11l ..
~ie Bachmann . .
~l Capitan Danville_
Scott Haggerty & daughter Hal~y
"0. H st. Livermore .-.,
Dave Bewlëy .. . .
~rittany Lane Dubli~
Richard King .
"E. Las P.. a..lmas Court ..~¡....
Fremo!:!Q11~. _. . ... : (w)'I\IIIII.....II.rr
Cell_ . .
4
·
·
·
·
·
·
('
(
KASHIMA: 83'35 Brittany Dr.
Dublin
KING: 8348 Creekside Drive
Dublin
First Letter: AUGUST 20, 2003 from the KASHIMA RESIDENCE
THIS IS SAME DATE AS A LET1ER TO MR. & MRS. KASHIMA
FROM ANIMAL CON1ROL , REGARDING 1HEIR DOGS.
BEFORE THIS DATE OF AUGUST 20, 2003, 1HE KASHIMA'S
NEVER EXPRESSED ANY URGENCYIFEAR, AS STATED IN TIIESE
LETTERS.
WE ARE NEVER COPIED ANY LETTERS MR. & MRS. KASHllv1A
MAIL TO OTHERS REGARDING THIS ISSUE.
WE HA VB MADE SEVERAL A TIE:MPTS TO COM1dUNICA TE WITH
MR & MRS. KASHIMA, WITH NO RESPONSE.
~"
_.. . ..... """
5£9 ~ß~
. .
-1,-
','. ,.,'.... ...', '..... .'..:,',....:... ,.·f
~. ~~'. . i',:.(· .' ,+;. :.. ,'.::.: .' " '. ....': '; . ......
'.. .. . ';' .: ...", ,+
.. .
~";-'
··'··r ,-'".,''' ,....,..¡.'....."'.'.\I.....~ .....,.......( '\ ..,....,';7-;;-:-::;-¡ ~7 ~ g~ )'
<.> .: '. .......:..'~.,:.'.:.., ....:..:.~.:.: .::.<:~::/: :)"''';:' ;~.. .:.'.; .::. .....;,..:..:' .:'.<.'. '.~ /~ '. >...<
: '.' j ,: I . " _ .' . ...'".
, .
'.
~....;.
..
. .
, . .
.,.
, .
SILVERGA TEJiIGHLÀNDS ASSOCIATION' .
c/o Homeowner Auoelatlon Services
1400 Old Crow Canyon Road;Sul(e A3
Son Rltmoßt'CA 94583
925·361-4848 .
August 17 , 2001
Mr. &Mrs..Kashima
8335 Brittany Drive
. Dublin, CÅ 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. Sectioo 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,l/The Board shall soecificallv have the ,.itzht (0 rJrohibit the mai11lenance of any
oel which. aner Notice andHearim!. is found to be a nllisance to other Owners. 1/ The
obvious point her is that your community CC&R.s 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..!.1Ie:R(jt'178 'ri'1C;~ MWS ~O A7?:!J O? '2:>"m8(J7ð!eS
.
, : .. ¡ ~." . .".: '. ~~.:o .'
1) ... ,', . I ~
. : .
t(
..." . ,..(
,'... I~ :. t :, . '. ..,; . '.' "
. " .
.< ~ ' : ~..' : '~. ., ," ,'" :. ;,~ I , " '" .
, . ", . '. .
t 5ß·
,."",, ,/,00· ( ,','" '..' '. " ~ ßL
":' ';, ,':;,:" .,."', '," "«:: ;',:;
'1>'
·
September 7, 200 I
SILVBRGATE HIOHLANDS ASSOCIATION'
% Homeowner Åssociation Services .
2400 Old Crow Canyon Road, Suite A3
SanRamon, CA94583
Attenûon: Board of Directors
SUBJECT: Barking Dogs
"
Dear SirlMndam:
·
This is in response to your August 17 letter regarding our barking dogs. Our fll'stconcern
is to verify that the neighbor(s) that complained are certain that the noise is coming only
or mainly fu?m our dogs. Since there are at least six dags in the near vicinity, we don't
know if they have nústakenly assumed the sound is comingftom our property. As you
know, noise cmies and we believe that it is often difficult to detemùne 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, realize that ~ur dogsnre barking at least part ofthe time. We have tried
several bark deterrent systems and we feel that we have fmalty 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, il 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 wiU need to be verified to confinn that the noise is corning from our property as I
believe there are several other dogs in the immediate area that are contributing to this
problem.
Sincerely,
~Fd4-~
Á>nm~la S~Knshima
8335 Brittany Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
·
,..
,--~~g-
Sep'03 03 04:38p
(ì
925- ~,?:7 '1369
August 28, 2003
SheriffChar}CI; C. Plummer/Officer Rowmltn
AJamoda County Shcrif1~ ; Office
Field ServicC$
4595 Glcuson Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
Dear Sir(s) and/or Mnd:un:
SUBJECT: Dog Complain!
Wc fire in receipt of your Icuer dULc<.! Augl.ml20. 2003 advising us Of3 compl3int Ilbout our
dog(s). Please nolo lÞut 1 am uttnching It letter that was scnl to my neighhor REI-UNO my
property complnining ubout lhoir dog's barking. You will also ntlte that we k~p our dogs
JNSIDE the house because of their dog(s)" b:lrking :md aggressivchchavior.
I am not sure who liled the complaint but ifil's this satnll ncighbnr_ I call only usslImc that lImy
arc trying (0 dl-;place whorcthe actual noise i:> coming from. I r it's from :molher neighbor, the
sound carries and since tho.<;e dogs arc at (lur huck rcnee, it's Vl.:ry rossiþ/\: tnat someone coOn
assume that our dogs are causing the di!lturbanœ. .
Therc W¡I$ nlso It not¡ltion lhut ¡¡¡Ir dow.; (Ire ulJow\:d 10 run It~o~ound t can :;¡ssure you thaI ^ T NO
TIM F. arc lh\:y cver ¡dk~wcd oUl$idc or our prt1pcrly and unl(1I1uniltcly. becallse ofthe l:itu.tLtÎon
wilh our back Ilcighbtlr. Ih<:y d() n(~l even run rree in thdr own backy:trd lor any length oflirnc.
My dO!;Ji arc supervised even whcn theyurc let out lor their b~lthroom nnd ...'Xcrci:>c hreak:> hcr(lrc
Ih...")' arc sent buck into the house.
We have 11150 notified' our Ilomoowncrs As:>oc;uIÎfln l)[·this ~ÎILlalion (nole thatlhis ncighbt1r is on
the Board of Directors).
I woûld like to lile It complainl for thc rt(lisc dislurhilnce c,lu:>ed by Ihcir dogs ..IS well as for some
assislance in gutting thcir c(l(lpcration 10 contain Ihcir dog.<; tlway I"rom (he common fencc to
prcvcnllhcm from brè.,king Ihr(ll1gh.
I trtlst that this inform~tion will s:ttisiy (he compl:1inr :.tg:IÎn.'\t our ..mirnals. PIc:1.'>c conlnel me ill
925.556.9239 il"yoll need more inl"ormntiCln (0 lilc thc compluint oJ¡ my neighbor's dogs at H34H
Crecksid~ DrivII. We can certainly show Ol1ker Bowman th~ al"c:lS wherc Ih<.:ir dog(:;) havl;
brokcn lhrough t.hc fcncing 1L<; well a:-: whnt we h¡1Ve donI; 011 Ollr part 10 curb this vcry frustrating
~ÎIuatiofl. We would like 10 "lIow our c.logs lo enjoy l1l1t b¡¡ckyarc.l but we <lrc un:¡hlc to al this
lime.
All:o nole U1:It I have mailcQ in the dog licen:>ing lor ollr dnA-~.
~
Pa.n\Ka~him:1
R335 Britbny Drive
Dublin, C^ 94568
p.~
_ _A
sq tf.yg <'1
·
·
·
·
·
·
'-¡
.' .'
(
MORGAN D. KING
ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW
7080 DONLON WAY. SUITE 222
DUBLIN. CA 94568
92::;.829.6363 FAX, 925-829-7262
EM:AIL, morgan@morg:mking.com
February 2, 2004
Mr. and Mrs. .~ashima
8335 Brittani 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,
.~,( / .....
,..' /----/ \ ,/ .'
, .' ( \ "~ .'r_.~~__,~,>'
cc: HOA Management
Officer Bowman/Alameda Co. Sheriff Dept.
ÚJO Qò ßy
)
Morgan & Nancy King
8S48 QnIøksIde Drive
Dublin. CA IM58B
.1
July 21, 2004
Mr. and Mrs. Kashima
8335 Brittany Drive rf
Dublin, CA 94568 It!:. tter
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 KaT
make this complaint.
Our dog was also injured in the altercation at the co~mon
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
ÚJI ~ßLI
·
·
·
·
·
·
(
. -.,.
JpZ-- ~ ßL/
. 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 attemptsto meet with us in
person.
Be advised that a portion ofthe shared fence with our above neighbors, collapsed,
during a winter storm 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.
(
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 sm.all wire/net Irernember in your
yard, apparently is not sufficient to keep your dogs from the fence.
Our dogs have had obedience training, and are wondetful 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 believeyoumovedinapprox. 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 of letters 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.
eantime, the fence support on both sides is not going to correct this issue long-
cc : Âlû¡11ecfa CO. CJ!r Cr/p/-
..~ ~ t¡ ,.1 YrJ tJ l- í ) ,)() I)
(p 3 ð g~
·
·
·
e'""'" - ."~ :
1 .:
.~;<'
'Ji'
C
e
...
,
........... 1·
,.' ...!f'"...., \., ".,.111
I".'" ,.,¡,.··w.L':;¡" .,
....... ~. ,,,,1::~":Z:fp:1J.·; ';:
;.~.~ ,. b:,~" -\ ~ ,,:
.r·, '. . ß1' !!' ..:;..--.' "
., ~,,~\"Ç ~~t ~ tf':~;; . r:.:>?
. ,t.b!,~;¡"'1 .~>. .~, '4'
-,¿'
""',
"'.
.'" ,r
~"
""1
"
......
r;t-·
/,.-.J:r
:' .:~ ~~.;.
.'<~~"'~"';
~i ~,
"~"I <.Co i,l .~" 1.\
.
;,.;t.
.'
..
'.'
)
"..'
"
"
.0;,\
.
",'"
(,;
ì
\
'"
~.
:.0;.."
'",~
~"'!r
.
~»r-' . p. ,
~.,
"'.
"." f
3~~",¡
,',
..,"^'.;..,
'"
'I,a!.
..
'~~L ",.'"
~/
.,
"
:r.:~
II'"·
I¡{"
...
- .......
tt~~ '
1l\*_t ,',.'" ~..~
~,.¡\"~ ' tt,' r'
~t.r- , I~ I j
e"''':'.' '"'';''.'¡.'ì''''"'''
. .&;.'~
,.\, ,.~'
...... . ,. 'I ~
;1,..'1' ' '...;;-,.. ,;,
,., .,
¡Ii .; ,t" ',.\
,'.. ."" ",",'
,J. "., ,\~',..-;lA..
.... ..,.,;': i ~ ., ~.;.,¡~~
'" "',? ", ~r.. t "-''I'
~ ~1-
~. )-..
~
~.~,.,..~~~~,. < þì'·
I ". .. . - . .. t.''' .¡¡~,"
t~:~/'" t~.'. '!}'
,$I .,Í'< ,",,""
r !~,
I ',"; '~.
" f ¡·I
.<+
,
,
\
f.~
~ "
. .
---~
~~"'. ·it'
;{'I'~,
" ..
·
·
·
-J..O ütvß'-t t'
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 WoodranchCr., 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 if they 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 ofthe 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 onthe Kashima
property, but it is not possible for "Makaha" to push the boards onto the King property.
ATTACHMENT 3
(
11 f?J?> tj
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
bOéU'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 if there 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, but 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 anew fence."
Ms. Cunningham said that the fence issue is a civil matter, but that she does have the
authority to order better containrnentof 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 pampWets to the Kings and the
Kashimas. Mr. Kashima left his pamplùet 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
·
·
·
·
¡
1'2- Dòß~
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.K.ing
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. Mr. 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
'ì2t~~
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.Cù4h~
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 08/18/04, 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.
·
·
·
·
':14 ~ 'ßLf
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 a.dditional 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 of the 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.
15 ~ 'BLI
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
ðø-R-6E Î?7'ti'7",.f¿:;4 1.
.
: , .
CITY 0'1-- DUBLIN
1tp-~"84-
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
website:http://www:ci.dublin.ca.us
·
JI. ,il
DATE: August 26, 2004
Morgan King
8348 Creekside Drive
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Transmittal of Vicious dog Hearing Findings
Dear Mr. King:
CERTIFIED MAIL: 7002 0510 0002 2252 6493
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. Enclosed are the
.. Vicious Dog Hearing Findings involving your dog.
·
. , .
Please note that certà.in restrictions have·beeÌ1 placed on your dog; Y òu 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 frèe to contact this office. Your cooperation inthis
matter is appreciated.
..
Sincerely,
/l0J 2·,··
W/1,¡t,1".f " {;lþ11¡/J.,:(IJ,.?1 , Y/~,
17'/'1.) ,'/(r v¡...·f' (
/ . ,. /'
Amy tunning~am ' '
Adminis1rative Analyst
..
cc: Tony Owens, Department ofField Services, Alameda County Animal Control
Myron, Pam & Crystal Kashima
Kim & James Castillo
, N aney King
Doug Morrison
'I-.<U...~,rt:.'? '~.'r-:~'':iI'
·
Area Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650 . City Council 833-6650 . Personnel 833-6605 . Economic Development 833-6650
FinaIJE,e,ß3:;J.:i640 . 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 RecycledPaper
ATTACHMENT 4
I
CITY Of-< DUBLIN
. ·?1Lß ß L/
100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568
Website: http://www;ci.dublin.ca.us
FINDINGS AND ORDER·
VICIOUS DOG HEARING
Dog: "Saake"
. Owner: Morgan ~g
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 "Þ:.n attack on another animal, livestock, or poultry .
. occur_s on property other than that of the owner of the attacking dog"; and
WHEREAS, on July 14, 2004, an incident took place involving "Makaba,". a dog ovmed
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 of their 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
detennined 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
on]y be displaced by a dog from the King's property, and (c) that upon the fence
breaking nothing prevented "Saalœ" from extending a portion of her body, including her
head, onto the Kashima property; and
Area Code (925) . City Manager 833-6650 . City Council B33-6650 . Personnel B33-6605 . Economic Development 833-6650 .
Finance 833-6640 . 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
1ß V]; 2>4
,00
·
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
performed, 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 from 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 anytbirig,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 ablè to extend himself onto the King property
because of the 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,
substantiàl evidence existS to conclude that-the attack must have' taken place on the
Kashima property.
·
NOW,THEREFORE, in acèordance with Section 5.36.340 of the Dublin MunicipàI
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 a vicious dog as defined in
DMC5.36.290 (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 6fthe 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 cQntain "Saake" within the fenced yard.
In accordance with Section 5.36.290, this decision shall be final.
·
/7. C, tlJ. 8 c.¡
i/-:) ".
Signed: Ii. ~P!#L - -.
J~~inghaD.1(Director/DeSignee
.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
You have the right to appeal tlùs decision to the City CounciL Any appeal must be filed
'Within five (5) calendar days from the date ofissuarìce 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.
'.
.
ßD flb ßL\
·
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
(CCP Section 1 o 13 (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 V,ICIOUS 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 of the State of California that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed at Dublin, California, on August 26, 2004
'tu-rl)ßL ~IJÞ{-
·
-- -_... .-
._- ... ~4
~\ C5b ßL\
C (.,,¡,. . ,l..¥\ÙlDCq,-.,/
wt\IÎ'^'l.h(;..Ñ\
c.¡; h-t.) /' I
fC\. r.-\ \a\1. \,t.-·
·
1'....1-111 II
. ._~. -- ~~-
""C E.... ~V¡::n
F\ t:. t J' ~ \:: ...,.,.... 1'1'''''
MORGAN D. KING
. ATTORNEY & COuNSELO:B AT LAW
7080 DO:sLQN WAY, SmTE 2i12
DUBLIN, CA 94.568
.. ')'.' .;. [\I'\á
'\ ii' \ 1).1'" ,
:..\ ~~, t::~. \.- \. ..
9!eO'8j:9'6363 FAX, e2a:8211-1g611;
EMAIL, morgan@mQtpnlcing.l:'o.rJ:I
C~T\f' OF DU6UN
August 30, 2004
Offico of the City Clerk
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
APPEAL OF F1NDING RE: VICIOUS DOG HEARING
Date of incident: July 14, 2004
Complainants: Myron·· & Pam Kashima
On August 26, 2004. Administrative Analyst Amy Cunningham ma.iled to me a notice of
her finding following a "vicious dog'~ hearing on August 11, 2004. Her finding is that our
dog, to wh:, "Saake," is a "viciouf> dog,j and a "public nuisancc" pursuant to City of
Dublin Municipal Codc § 5.36.290(A)(3).
We beJjeve1he evidence docs not support the findin.gs. and th,e statute has not been
applied in a reasonable manner in this Í:ostance. We also believe the statute is too vague1y
worded, lacks adequate deflfiitions, and fails to provide' for consideration of all releva.nt
facts.
Based on the above, we hereby appeal the finding(g).
It1 Ìì
I Morgan Kkin
D:,:,I::'f,!!\J
ATTACHMENT 5
·
·
AUG-30-200402:15PM
ID)DUBLIN CITY MGR OFFC
PAGE: 001 R=9T:
TEl)
·
·
·
£1-- Sb «<6 L\
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
ATTACHMENT 6
--
~3 ºbßL~
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 of the 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
·
·
·
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSTENTIONS: COUNCILMEMBERS
APPROVED:
MA YOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
3
-~.PQ~L\